The Constitutional Court's Decision Number 90/PUU-XXI/2023 concerning additional provisions for office experience from election selection within the minimum age requirement for presidential and vice presidential candidates, has raised controversy because it is allegedly influenced by certain political factors of interest and alleged conflicts of interest among Constitutional Court judges. The problem studied in this study is how the decision of the Constitutional Court Number 90/PUU-XXI/2023 concerning the additional provisions of office experience from election selection within the minimum age requirement for presidential / vice presidential candidates affects the general election process in Indonesia and how the concept of amicus curiae can be applied in election disputes against the minimum age requirement for presidential / vice presidential candidates. This article uses normative legal research methods and case approaches. The results of this study show that the Constitutional Court Decision has significant implications for the electoral process in Indonesia, especially in terms of the selection and quality of prospective leaders, by emphasizing the importance of relevant political experience. The concept of amicus curiae shows the contribution of additional perspectives from independent parties that assist the Constitutional Court in considering the practical implications of this decision, as well as ensuring that the decision taken takes into account the broader public interest.