scholarly journals The Institutional Renewal in Settlement of Disputes of Local Election Results

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 277-292
Author(s):  
Heru Widodo
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Calculation Result ◽  
National Election ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Local Election ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Institutional Renewal ◽  
Election Results ◽  
The One ◽  
Settlement Of Disputes

Abstract. Since the first step of local election in 2015, the authority of adjudicating a dispute of local election’s result has been run by The Constitutional Court (MK) until a special judicial board before the national election held. An ideal design of the institutional renewal to adjudicate a controversy of local election’s result, could be a part of judicial environment under The Supreme Court (MA) supervision, or may becomes a new institution or replaces another institution by attaching to the authorized institution, named: Bawaslu, PT TUN or MK. Bawaslu was become the one of the institution which fulfills the requirements. Started from a legislative election on 2014, Bawaslu has an authority of resolving a dispute among the candidates of general election or between the candidates and the committee. And since the national election in the year 2017, Bawaslu has given the authorization to settle up an administrative violation, a conflict of local election and to handle a money politics through TSM. The authority of the dispute court of election results is proposed not only on the controversy over the calculation result, but also including unreachable legal phenomenon with law enforcement on criminal system and stage of election dispute, as an inseparable part.Keywords: institutional renewal, dispute result, national election.Abstrak. Sejak pemilihan serentak tahap pertama tahun 2015, wewenang mengadili sengketa hasil pemilukada dijalankan Mahkamah Konstitusi sampai dibentuk badan peradilan khusus sebelum pelaksanaan pemilihan serentak nasional. Disain pembaharuan kelembagaan yang ideal untuk mengadili sengketa hasil pemilukada serentak, dapat menjadi bagian dari lingkungan peradilan dibawah Mahkamah Agung, dapat pula menjadi lembaga baru ataupun mereposisi lembaga dengan cara melekatkan pada lembaga yang saat ini berwenang menyelesaikan sengketa pemilihan, yakni : Bawaslu, PT TUN atau MK. Bawaslu menjadi salah satu pilihan lembaga yang memenuhi persyaratan. Sejak Pemilu Legislatif 2014, Bawaslu berwenang menyelesaikan sengketa antarpeserta pemilu maupun antara peserta dengan penyelenggara, dan sejak Pemilukada Serentak 2017, bahkan diberi wewenang memutuskan pelanggaran administrasi, sengketa pemilukada sampai penanganan politik uang (money politics) secara TSM. Kewenangan peradilan sengketa hasil pemilihan diusulkan tidak hanya atas perselisihan atas hasil perhitungan, tetapi memasukkan peristiwa hukum yang tidak terjangkau dengan penegakan hukum dalam sistem pidana dan tahap sengketa pemilihan, sebagai bagian yang tidak terpisahkan. Kata kunci : pembaharuan kelembagaan, sengketa hasil, pemilukada serentak

scholarly journals Optimalisasi Peran Hakim Agung dalam Penyelesaian Perkara Kasasi dan Peninjauan Kembali

2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 373
Author(s):  
Dudu Duswara Machmudin
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Law Enforcement Agencies ◽  
Judicial Process ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Before And After ◽  
The One

This article aims to provide knowledge and understanding on the functions of the state law enforcement agencies in Indonesia. Differences of powers and functions of law enforcement agencies such as the Supreme Court, Attorney General’s Office and the Constitutional Court needs to be understood in depth. Furthermore, given the problems in all courts all over the world which is, among others, the slow settlement of cases, this article describes and analyses the role of Supreme Court Justices in resolving cassation and review cases before and after the issuance of the decree of the Chief Justice Number 119/KMA/SK/VII/2013 regarding the determination of the Day of Deliberation and Pronouncement and Number 214/KMA/SK/XII/2104 concerning Time Period for the Handling of Cases at the Supreme Court. However, when Constitutional Court pronounced Ruling Number 34/PUU-XI/2013 a problem arises in which the products of the two state judicial bodies seem to be inconsistent, especially in the framework for the resolution of criminal cases. On the one hand, the Supreme Court wants the creation of a judicial process that is simple, speedy, and low cost through the strengthening of the two products above, but on the    other hand the Constitutional Court through its award extend the time span of litigation process for the settlement of review cases which can be done repeatedly. Thus, in order to provide legal certainty, the Supreme Court issued Supreme Court Circular Number 7 Year 2014 which essentially affirms that the petition for review in criminal cases is limited only one time based on other legal basis namely Judicial Authority Act and Supreme Court Act.

scholarly journals Rekonstruksi Kewenangan Penyelesaian Perselisihan Hasil Pemilihan Umum

2016 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Refly Harun
Keyword(s):  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Settlement System ◽  
Local Election ◽  
Legal Problems ◽  
Election Results ◽  
Settlement Of Disputes ◽  
Settlement Of Dispute ◽  
The Ideal

Construction of authority in the settlement of dispute over the result of local election is still in transformation to become the ideal format. At the same time, the authority in the settlement of election dispute which is distributed to many agencies is also demanding simplification. The fact requires that there must be reconstruction on the settlement of all kinds of legal problems in election, including the dispute over local election results. Related to this, one of the proposals offered through this paper is the simplification of settlement system and the courts involved in the settlement of disputes. Where, for the settlement of disputed election results remain under the authority of the Constitutional Court, while the settlement of election disputes, local election disputes and disputes over the results of local election are handled by a special election court. The role of the election court referred to will be run by the Election Supervisory Body which will transform into a special election court.

Mandatory Pre-trial Procedure for the Settlement of Disputes in Civil Procedure (Analysis of the Application of Part 5 of Article 4 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation)

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 35-47
Author(s):  
D. V. Kniazev ◽  
◽  
A. N. Kukartseva ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Judicial Process ◽  
Trial Procedure ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Arbitration Procedure ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The One ◽  
Commercial Organizations ◽  
Settlement Of Disputes ◽  
Overall Effectiveness

The provisions of the arbitration procedural legislation on the pre-trial procedure for the settlement of the dispute are additional requirements to the filing to the court in comparison with civil procedural legislation. According to the legislator, on the one hand, these requirements encourage the independence of commercial organizations and individual entrepreneurs in the settlement of economic disputes, on the other hand, indicate the desire of the legislator to reduce the number of arbitration disputes and increase the effectiveness of justice. About three years have passed since the appearance of the norm in question and some conclusions can be drawn regarding its application by the courts. The authors of the article draw attention to the problematic aspects of law enforcement practice: categories of disputes when the application of pre-trial procedure is mandatory; compliance with the form, content, deadlines for submitting a claim; assessment by the court of the actions of the parties to resolve the dispute before going to court; overall effectiveness of the existing order. The authors conclude that the goal set by the legislator before the pre-trial procedure (an alternative pre-trial method for the resolution of disputes, designed to provide faster, less formalized and costly dispute resolution in comparison with the judicial process) is not achieved.

Law enforcement practice in the field of budget: theoretical-legal and judicial-arbitration aspects

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hristina Peshkova ◽  
Vladimir Pachkun
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Graduate Students ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Financial Control ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Educational Organizations ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Legal Provisions ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation

The monograph examines the practical aspects of the application of the budget legislation of the Russian Federation in judicial practice — the practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and arbitration courts, as well as the functions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on the interpretation of budget legislation. The article analyzes the theoretical and legal provisions of law enforcement activities in the field of the budget, as well as the categories of budget and legal science. For legal scientists, graduate students, students of legal educational organizations, as well as practitioners of courts, financial control bodies and other state and municipal institutions.

scholarly journals The Settlement of Boundary Disputes Through Testing of Legislation in Indonesia

2018 ◽  
Vol 54 ◽  
pp. 01003
Author(s):  
Suparto ◽  
Rahdiansyah
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Regional Autonomy ◽  
Boundary Disputes ◽  
Legal Principle ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Long Time ◽  
The Government ◽  
Settlement Of Disputes

Boundary dispute is a new phenomenon that occurred in the era of regional autonomy followed by the expansion of the region. One of them occurred between Kepulauan Riau and Jambi Provinces related to Berhala Island ownership. Settlement of disputes between these two provinces took quite a long time and also caused tensions between two provinces. Actually, the government through the Ministry of Home Affairs has issued a regulation to solve the boundary problem of this area namely the Minister of Home Affairs Regulation No.1 in 2006 and No. 76 in 2012 on Guidelines for Confirmation of the Boundaries, however, is still less effective because although it has been done in such a way the party who feels aggrieved still take another way that is by testing the legislation to the Supreme Court or Mahkamah Konstitusional (Constitutional Court). An example is the boundary dispute between Kepulauan Riau and Jambi Province which was resolved through the examination of legislation to the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court. In the case, there were 3 decisions, namely Supreme Court Decision No.49P/HUM/2011, Decision of the Constitutional Court No. 32/PUU-X/2012 and the decision of the Constitutional Court No. 62/PUU-X/2012. Based on the research results obtained as follows 1). Implementation of the principle or legal principle of lex posterior derogat lex priori by the Supreme Court 2). The decision of the Supreme Court was taken into consideration in the decision of the Constitutional Court 3). The cause of the territorial boundary disputes between Kepulauan Riau Province and Jambi Province was the synchronization of 3 related laws namely Indonesian Law no. 31 in 2003, Law no. 25 in 2002 and Law no. 54 of 1999.

scholarly journals Legal Pollution of Dispute Settlement Results of Regional Head Selection Realizing the Election Justice

2021 ◽  
Vol 04 (05) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gita Santika Ramadhani, Suteki ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Government Regulation ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Election Results ◽  
Law And Justice ◽  
The Government ◽  
Dispute Resolution Mechanism ◽  
Sense Of Justice

The implementation of direct regional head elections in the regions often raises disputes regarding the determination of the results of the vote. Efforts made by candidates who are dissatisfied with this determination are to submit a cancellation to the judicial institution. The update on the system for resolving the election results was carried out by the government to overcome this problem, namely the Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 1 of 2014. Problems discussed in this study include: how the dispute resolution mechanism was issued before the regulation, what updates are contained in the regulation how to achieve effective and fair election outcome dispute resolution. This study is a normative legal research that is descriptive in nature using a legal and analytical approach. Based on the results of the study, it can be concluded that the fundamental renewal lies with the institution authorized to handle, namely from the Constitutional Court to the High Court appointed by the Supreme Court. The author recommends that the renewal must be supported by technical regulations to ensure effectiveness and fulfill a sense of justice. Based on this research, the results show that the dynamics of the shifting of dispute resolution authority over the election results are influenced by the decision of the MK opened legally policy and the background of certain events. Namely: the problem of bribery that ensnares the judge, decisions that are considered controversial, case accumulation, and unpreparedness of institutional structure and infrastructure. Regarding the threshold requirements as a condition for receiving a dispute over a dispute over the results of a regional election, it has not yet supported the fulfillment of electoral / election justice. Because it has the potential to ignore aspects of substantive justice, mainly because it does not make the facts of the violations structured, systematic and massive (TSM) as a variable in examining cases. This neglect is not in line with one of the universally adopted principles of law and justice, which states that no one can benefit from irregularities and violations committed by himself and no one may be harmed by irregularities and violations committed by others (nullus / nemo commodum capere potes de injuria sua propria).

scholarly journals KEDUDUKAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI SEBAGAI LEMBAGA NEGARA BERDASARKAN UNDANG-UNDANG DASAR 1945

Solusi ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 94-105
Author(s):  
Johansyah Johansyah
Keyword(s):  
Political Parties ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Vice President ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
State Institutions ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Election Results ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Government

The Constitutional Court is the executive branch of the judiciary that is independent and separate from other branches of power, namely the government (executive) and legislative institutions. The Constitutional Court as a first and last level judiciary does not have an organizational structure as large as the Supreme Court which is the peak of a judicial system whose structure is vertically and horizontally covers five judicial environments, namely the general court environment, the state administrative court environment, the religious court environment, and military court environment. As an organ of judicial power that operates the judicial function, the Constitutional Court is independent, both structurally and functionally. The functions and authorities of the Constitutional Court based on Law No. 24 of 2003, namely the Constitutional Court has the authority to hear: Test the laws against the Republic of Indonesia 1945 Constitution; Decide on authority disputes between state institutions whose authority is granted by the Republic of Indonesia 1945 Constitution; Decide the dissolution of political parties; Decide disputes about election results; Give a verdict on the opinion of the House of Representatives that the President and / or Vice-President are suspected of violating the law in the form of treason, corruption, bribery, other serious crimes, or despicable acts, or no longer fulfill the conditions as President and or Vice President, as intended in the Republic of Indonesia 1945 Constitution.

scholarly journals INDONESIAN JUSTICE LEGAL POLITICS POST AMENDMENT OF 1945 CONSTITUTION

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-56
Author(s):  
Aladin Sirait
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Code Of Ethics ◽  
Code Of Conduct ◽  
State Institution ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Checks And Balances ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Creation

The essence of change in the field of justice after the amendment is a change in the system of judicial power at the constitutional and statutory levels. The creation of new supreme judicial institutions namely the Constitutional Court, in addition to the Supreme Court as the bearer and executor of the highest judicial powers in the presence of an independent Judicial Commission and cannot be separated from the powers of the judiciary. Legal politics that gave birth to the Constitutional Court Institution in its scope of duties and authority has played a large and important role in the goal of realizing justice. The Judicial Commission in its duties and authorities can substantially improve law enforcement in the environment and justice within the Supreme Court by proposing the appointment of a Chief Justice to the House of Representatives (DPR). The Supreme Court made progress with the issuance of Guidelines for the Implementation of Oversight within the Judiciary and the Joint Decree of the Chair of the Supreme Court and the Chair of the Judicial Commission on the Code of Ethics and the Code of Conduct for Judges. The Constitutional Court and Judicial Commission in its position as a high state institution with a strict division of tasks and authority has played a role in the creation of checks and balances mechanisms.

scholarly journals Masalah Eksekutabilitas Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi oleh Mahkamah Agung

2016 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 171
Author(s):  
Budi Suhariyanto
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Reform ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
Relationship Of

Normatively constitutional court and supreme of court has on equal position with a different authority. However, there is a relationship of authority and point of contact. Morever, potential to cause disharmony on law enforcement. For example, on implementation of the constitutional court’s decision directly followed by the decision of the supreme court but some others not. The constitutional court’s decision characteristic are final and binding general (erga omnes), at the same level with legislation (negatif legislator), undirectly binding and enforced by the supreme court. Fundamentally, judge at the supreme court and the courts below is not a mouthpiece of the law, therefore it has some authority to interpre the statute (was also againts the decision of the constitutional court) to be applied on cases they handle. Although the judges decision of the supreme court do not decide on the validity and constitutionality of the norm, but through the efforts of the discovery  or the interpretation of the law can gives an effect to the law enforcement and the establishment of a progressive and responsive legal reform.

scholarly journals PENYELESAIAN PERSELISIHAN HASIL PEMILIHAN KEPALA DAERAH PASCA PUTUSAN MK NO. 97/PUU-XI.2013

2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 139
Author(s):  
Indra Hendrawan
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Government Regulation ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Law ◽  
Dispute Resolution Mechanism ◽  
Regional Leaders

Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 2015 tentang Penetapan Perpu Nomor 1 Tahun 2014 tentang Pemilihan Gubernur, Bupati dan Walikota Menjadi Undang-Undang mengamanatkan Mahkamah Agung sebagai lembaga yang berwenang menyelesaikan perselisihan hasil pemilihan kepala daerah. Namun tanpa sempat diimplementasikan, Undang-Undang tersebut telah direvisi kembali melalui Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 2015 dengan melimpahkan penyelesaian perselisihan hasil pemilihan ke badan peradilan khusus. Perubahan Undang-Undang secara cepat tersebut telah menimbulkan pertanyaan, kemanakah arah kebijakan penyelesaian perselisihan di masa mendatang? Dengan pendekatan yuridis normative, tulisan ini mencoba menguraikan refleksi penyelesaian perselisihan di Mahkamah Agung ataupun Mahkamah Konstitusi selama satu dasawarsa terakhir untuk mendapatkan penanganan ideal yang harus dilakukan dalam rangka perbaikan penanganan perselisihan hasil pemilihan kepala daerah di masa mendatang. Berdasarkan hal tersebut, penempatan hakim-hakim yang berintegritas, mumpuni serta yang mengedepankan keadilan substantif dalam penyelesaian perselisihan merupakan hal mutlak yang harus dilakukan. Selain itu, perbaikan juga tidak cukup hanya pada tahap penanganan perselisihan hasil saja, perlu pula ada optimalisasi penegakan hukum di tahap-tahap sebelumnya yang dilakukan oleh KPU, Bawaslu/Panwaslu, DKPP ataupun penegak hukum lainnya.<p>Law No. 1 of 2015 on Enactment of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 1 of 2014 concerning the election of Governor, the Regent and Mayor Become Law mandates the Supreme Court as an authorized institution to settle disputes about electoral result from the local election for regional leaders. However, without a chance to be implemented, the Law has been revised by Law No. 8 of 2015 in which any disputes that arise from the results of the election are delegated to a special judicial body. The ammendment has raised question, to where the policy of dispute resolution will be directed in the future? Using normative juridical approach, this paper tries to elaborate the reflection of dispute resolution in the Supreme Court or the Constitutional Court during the last decade to find out ideal treatment should be applied in order to improve the dispute resolution mechanism in the future. So, the placement of judges who have integrity, capability, and put the substantive fairness in the dispute resolution is absolute term. In addition, the improvement is not enough in just handling the dispute resolution stage, there should also be optimizing of the the law enforcement in the earlier stages that were carried out by the General Election Commission, Bawaslu/Panwaslu, DKPP or other law enforcement bodies.</p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document