CD Skripsi

Inkonsistensi Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Terkait Kewenangan Mengadili Sengketa Pemilihan Kepala Daerah (Studi Kasus Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 97/Puu-Xi/2013 Dan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 85/Puu-Xx/2022)

---

ABSTRACT
The difference in the regimes of General Elections (Pemilu) and Regional
Head Elections (Pilkada) stems from the Constitutional Court Decision Number
97/PUU-XI/2013 which caused the Constitutional Court not to be authorized to
examine and hear disputes about the results of the elections. However, as long as
a Specialized Judicial Body has not been established, the Constitutional Court is
still authorized to examine and hear the case. The establishment of a Specialized
Judicial Body that has not yet been formed resulted in the issuance of
Constitutional Court Decision Number 85/PUU-XX/2022 regarding the authority
to hear disputes over election results and the Constitutional Court is again
authorized to examine and hear disputes over election results. This research aims
to analyze the legal considerations of the Constitutional Court judges in deciding
a decision and see the inconsistency of the Constitutional Court in interpreting
Constitutional Court Decision Number 97/PUU-XI/2013 and Constitutional Court
Decision Number 85/PUU-XX/2022.
This type of research can be classified into normative juridical research.
By using secondary data which includes primary legal materials, secondary legal
materials, and tertiary legal materials and data collection techniques using
literature studies. This research also uses qualitative data analysis and draws
conclusions deductively.
From the results of research on the problem, there are three main things
that can be concluded. First, in the Constitutional Court Decision Number
97/PUU-XI/2013, the Constitutional Court judges considered that regional
elections are not included in the electoral regime as regulated in the 1945
Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, then in the Constitutional Court
Decision Number 85/PUU-XX/2022, the Constitutional Court judges consider
that there is no distinction between election and regional election regimes.
Second, the cause of the Constitutional Court's inconsistency in interpreting
decisions regarding the authority to adjudicate regional election disputes is the
lack of clarity in the 1945 Constitution regarding the regulation of elections and
regional elections, differences in the logic of thinking of Constitutional Court
judges in deciding and adjudicating regional election disputes, changes related to
the composition of the members and chairman of the panel of Constitutional
Court judges in Constitutional Court Decision Number 97/PUU-XI/2013 and
Constitutional Court Decision Number 85/PUU-XX/2022, and changes to
statutory regulations related to resolving disputes over regional head results. The
author's suggestion is that in this decision it can be interpreted that the
interpretation of the constitution must not only be based on the originalist method
which is based on the original intent in the 1945 Constitution, so that the meaning
of the 1945 Constitution is more formal and can be explained through the
statutory regulations below as well as the problems contained in it. These two
decisions do not require amendments to the 1945 Constitution.
Keywords : Regional Head Election – Regional Head Election Dispute
Resolution

---

Ketersediaan

Informasi Detail

Judul Seri

-

No. Panggil

1909112656

Penerbit

Pekanbaru : Universitas Riau – Fakultas Hukum – Hukum Tata Negara., 2023

Deskripsi Fisik

-

Bahasa

Indonesia

ISBN/ISSN

-

Klasifikasi

1909112656

Tipe Isi

-

Tipe Media

-

Tipe Pembawa

-

Edisi

-

Subjek

HUKUM TATA NEGARA

Info Detail Spesifik

-

Pernyataan Tanggungjawab

DAUS

Versi lain/terkait

Lampiran Berkas

Komentar

---

Anda harus masuk sebelum memberikan komentar