Main Article Content

Abstract

Disputes over General Election Results (hereinafter abbreviated as PHPU) are dispute resolutions in the Constitutional Court based on the authority regulated in Law Number 7 of 2017 concerning Elections and Law Number 24 of 2003 concerning the Constitutional Court. There are fundamental problems in PHPU Presidential Elections regarding the resolution of violations that are structured, systematic, and massive. This study has conclusions, namely: First, the majority of judges have a fairly moderate view in viewing the position of the Constitutional Court to examine and prosecute violations of a TSM nature. However, all three constitutional judges have a dissenting opinion that uses the original intent method of interpretation in interpreting the authority. Second, there needs to be an expansion of the meaning of structured, systematic, and massive violations, and regarding time limits in PHPU in the Constitutional Court to produce substantive justice.

Keywords

Structured Systematic Massive Violations Disputes Over Election Results Judicial Restraint

Article Details

References

  1. Asnawi, Asnawi, Asih Gaduh Andriani, and Ayang Fristia Maulana. “Penegakan Hukum Pelanggaran Pemilihan Umum Yang Bersifat Terstruktur, Sistematis dan Masif.” Yustisia Tirtayasa : Jurnal Tugas Akhir 3, no. 3 (December 3, 2023): 296. https://doi.org/10.51825/yta.v3i3.21939.
  2. Aulia, Muhammad Zulfa, Bimo Fajar Hantoro, Wawan Sanjaya, and Mahrus Ali. “The Use of Progressive Law Phrase in Constitutional Court Decisions: Context, Meaning, and Implication: Penggunaan Frasa Hukum Progresif Dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi: Konteks, Makna, Dan Implikasi.” Jurnal Konstitusi 20, no. 3 (September 1, 2023): 423–50. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk2034.
  3. Fitra Mutiara Al Hasna. “Tinjauan Terhadap Penyebab Sengketa Perselisihan Tentang Hasil Pemilihan Umum di Indonesia.” Ethics and Law Journal: Business and Notary 2, no. 1 (January 27, 2024): 273–78. https://doi.org/10.61292/eljbn.129.
  4. Kasim, Aminuddin. “Dekonstruksi Penanganan Pelanggaran Administrasi yang Terstruktur, Sistematis dan Masif Dalam Pilkada.” Mimbar Hukum - Fakultas Hukum Universitas Gadjah Mada 33, no. 2 (2021). https://journal.ugm.ac.id/v3/MH/article/view/3730/1296.
  5. Lailam, Tanto, and Putri Anggia. “Pengenyampingan Keadilan Substantif Dalam Penerapan Ambang Batas Sengketa Hasil Pilkada di Mahkamah Konstitusi.” Jurnal Legislasi Indonesia 17, no. 2 (June 30, 2020): 209. https://doi.org/10.54629/jli.v17i2.543.
  6. Muda, Iskandar. “Interpretasi Mahkamah Konstitusi Terkait Uji Konstitusional Pasal 66 Undang-Undang Jabatan Notaris.” Jurnal Yudisial 13, no. 3 (January 30, 2021): 267. https://doi.org/10.29123/jy.v13i3.440.
  7. Nugraha, Sigit Nurhadi. “Penyelesaian Perselisihan Hasil Pemilihan Umum Serentak dalam Perspektif Keadilan.” AL WASATH Jurnal Ilmu Hukum 4, no. 1 (April 30, 2023): 55–66. https://doi.org/10.47776/alwasath.v4i1.661.
  8. Satrio, Abdurrachman. “Kewenangan Mahkamah Konstitusi Memutus Perselisihan Hasil Pemilu Sebagai Bentuk Judicialization 0f Politics.” Jurnal Konstitusi 12, no. 1 (May 20, 2016): 117. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1217.
  9. Tanto Lailam and Putri Anggia. “Pengenyampingan Keadilan Substantif Dalam Penerapan Ambang Batas Sengketa Hasil Pilkada Di Mahkamah Konstitusi.” Jurnal Legislasi Indonesia 17, no. 2 (2020). https://e-jurnal.peraturan.go.id/index.php/jli/article/view/543.
  10. Vitorio Mantalean and Icha Rastika. “Tanpa Laporan Pelanggaran TSM Ke Bawaslu, MK Anggap Dugaan Pelanggaran Tak Ada.” Kompas.Com, April 22, 2024, Nasional edition. https://nasional.kompas.com/read/2024/04/22/14303411/tanpa-laporan-pelanggaran-tsm-ke-bawaslu-mk-anggap-dugaan-pelanggaran-tak.
  11. Winata, Muhammad Reza. “Judicial Restraint dan Constitutional Interpretation Terhadap Kompetensi Mengadili Pelanggaran Pemilihan Umum Terstruktur, Sistematis, Dan Masif.” Jurnal Legislasi Indonesia 17, no. 4 (December 30, 2020): 423. https://doi.org/10.54629/jli.v17i4.663.