skip to main content

Binding Legal Force of Supreme Court Decision over General Election Commission

*Madaskolay Viktoris Dahoklory  -  Master of Law, Faculty of Law, Universitas Diponegoro, Indonesia
Fifiana Wisnaeni  -  Faculty of Law, Universitas Diponegoro, Indonesia
Open Access Copyright 2020 LAW REFORM under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0.

Citation Format:
Abstract

Election Commission Regulation Number 26 Year 2018 established by the General Election Commission as a Follow-up to the Constitutional Court Decision Number 30 / PUU-XVI / 2018 which basically prohibits candidates for Regional Representative Council who are concurrently acting as administrators of political parties but the General Election Commission's rules are canceled by the Supreme Court based on its decision Number 65 / P / HUM / 2018. The purpose of this study is to analyze and find out whether the Supreme Court's Decision has binding legal force over the General Election Commission. The research method used is juridical-normative and qualitative analysis. The research results show that the Supreme Court Decision which nullifies legal norms in the General Election Commission Regulation still has binding legal force because in principle every judge's decision must be considered valid according to the law until there is equipment (res judicata pro veritate habetur), as well as the juridical decision of the Supreme Court immediately published in the State news, with the enactment of the Supreme Court's Decision it would naturally become the basis for the validity of the a quo Decision. The decision issued by the Supreme Court indirectly gave birth to a legal obligation for the General Election Commission, for that the General Election Commission must carry it out properly. Therefore, the Election Supervisory Body needs to oversee the election commission in carrying out the mandate of the decision.

Fulltext View|Download
Keywords: Supreme Court’s Decision; Judicial Review; The Election Commission Regulations

Article Metrics:

  1. Hoesein, Zainal A. (2009). Judicial Review di Mahkamah Agung Tiga Dekade Pengujian Peraturan Perundang-undanganan. Jakarta: PT Raja Grafindo Persada
  2. Martosoewignjo, Sri S. (2014). Hukum Tata Negara Indonesia Pemikiran dan Pandangan. Bandung: PT REMAJA ROSDAKARYA
  3. Mas, M. (2017). Hukum Acara Mahkamah Konstitusi. Bogor: Ghalia Indonesia
  4. Umam, K. (2016). Teori dan Metode Perubahan Undang-undang Dasar 1945 melalui Tafsir KonstitusiPerspektif Budaya Konstitusi. Yogyakarta: Thafa Media
  5. Aditya, Zaka Firma., & Winata, Muhammad Reza. (2018). Rekonstruksi Hiraerki Peraturan Perundang-undangan. NEGARA HUKUM; Membangun Hukum untuk Keadilan dan Kesejahteraan, Vol.9, (No.1), p. 80 & 89
  6. Andryan. (2018). Implikasi Putusan Hak Uji Materi Di Mahkamah Agung Terhadap Legalitas Pimpinan Dewan Perwakilan Daerah Republik Indonesia. Jurnal Penelitian Hukum DE JURE, Vol.18, (No.3), pp. 372-378
  7. Ardian, Nurman R., Akib, Muhammad., & Budiyono. (2016). Rekonstruksi Terhadap Sifat Final dan Mengikat Dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi. Fiat Justisia; Journal of Law, Vol.10, (No.4), p. 806
  8. Hoesein, Zainal A. (2012). Pembentukan Hukum dalam Perspektif Pembaharuan Hukum. Jurnal Rechts Vinding, Vol.1, (No.3), p. 315-317
  9. HSB, Ali M. (2016). Mengkritisi Pemberlakuan Teori Fiksi Hukum. Jurnal Penelitian Hukum DE JURE, Vol.16, (No.3), p. 253
  10. Junaenah, I. (2016). Tafsir Konstitusional Peraturan di Bawah Undang-undang. Jurnal Konstitusi, Vol.13, (No.3), pp. 504-506
  11. Kantor, Benjamin Salas., & Achurra, Maria Elisa Zavala. (2019). The Principle of res judicata before the Internasional Court of Justice: in the Midst of Comradeship and Divorce Between International Tribunals. Journal of International Dispute Settlement, Vol.10, (Issue 2), pp. 292-305
  12. Lumbuun, Topane G. (2009). Tindak Lanjut Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi oleh DPR RI. Jurnal LEGISLASI INDONESIA, Vol.6, (No.3), p. 85
  13. Mulyanto, A. (2013). Problematika Pengujian Peraturan Perundang-undangan (Judicial Review) Pada Mahkamah Agung dan Mahkamah Konstitusi. Yustisia Jurnal, Vol.2, (No.1), p. 58
  14. Muntoha. (2009). Demokrasi dan Negara Hukum. Jurnal Hukum No. 3, (Vol.16), pp. 384-389
  15. Pedersen, Ole W. (2019). A study of Administrative Environmental Decision-Making before the Courts. Jounal of Environmental Law, Vol.31, (issue 1),pp 64-70
  16. Prang, A. (2011). Implikasi Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi. Kanun Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, Vol.13, (No.1), p. 80
  17. Putra, A. (2013). Dualisme Pengujian Peraturan Perundang-undangan. Jurnal LEGISLASI INDONESIA, Vol.15, (No.2), p. 72
  18. Siallagan, H. (2016). Penerapan Prinsip Negara Hukum di Indonesia. Jurnal Sosiohumaniora, Vol.18, (No.2), p. 134
  19. Simamora, J. (2013). Analisa Yuridis Terhadap Model Kewenangan Judicial Review Di Indonesia. MIMBAR HUKUM, Vol. 25, (No.3), p. 392
  20. Sulardi. 2015. Kepastian Hukum, Kemanfaatan, dan Keadilan Terhadap Perkara Pidana Anak. Jurnal Yudisia, Vol.8, (No.3), p. 257
  21. Yulistyowati, Pujiastuti., Endah., & Mulyani, Tri. (2016). Penerapan Konsep Trias Politica Dalam Sistem Pemerintahan Republik Indonesia Studi Komparatif atas Undang_undang Dasar Tahun 1945 Sebelum Sesudah Amandemen. Jurnal Dinamika Sosial, Vol.18, (No.2), p. 330
  22. Yuniagara, Riki., Purnama Eddy., & Sjafei M Saleh. (2017). Kekuatan Hukum Mengikat SEMA NO 7 TAHUN 2014 tentang Pengajuan Permohonan Kembali dalam Perkara Pidana. Kanun Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, Vol. 19, (No.1), pp. 131-133
  23. Peraturan KPU No 26 Tahun 2018 tentang Perubahan kedua atas Peraturan KPU No 14 Tahun 2018 tentang Pencalonan Perseorangan Peserta Pemilihan Umum
  24. Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 65/P/HUM/2018

Last update:

No citation recorded.

Last update:

No citation recorded.