Publication Search

Disputes over general election results (PHPU) at the Constitutional Court reflect the critical role of evidence in resolving electoral conflicts. However, in practice, there exists an imbalance in the evidentiary process between the disputing parties. This study aims to analyze such disparities using a normative juridical approach by examining laws and regulations, Constitutional Court decisions, and relevant legal literature. The findings indicate that evidentiary issues in PHPU are influenced not only by formal and material legal aspects but also by the political dynamics that accompany every electoral contest. Unequal access to evidence, disparities in evidentiary capacity among parties, and the Court’s limited ability to conduct active examinations exacerbate this imbalance. Additionally, political interests often influence perceptions of the independence of evidence and the objectivity of court decisions. Therefore, there is a pressing need to strengthen technical regulations on evidence, enhance the evidentiary capacity of disputing parties, and optimize the Constitutional Court’s role in maintaining balance in the evidentiary process. In conclusion, the imbalance of evidence in PHPU at the Constitutional Court stems not only from procedural weaknesses but also from the political interests surrounding the trial process. Reforming the evidentiary system is urgently needed to uphold the principles of electoral justice in Indonesia.

The Constitutional Court of Indonesia is a judicial institution with the authority to review laws against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, resolve disputes between state institutions, decide on the dissolution of political parties, and adjudicate election result disputes. In exercising its authority, the Constitutional Court functions not only as the guardian of the constitution but also as a protector of human rights. This article aims to analyze how the procedural law of the Constitutional Court, as regulated under Law Number 24 of 2003 and its amendments, serves as a crucial instrument to ensure fair, transparent, and accountable proceedings in cases involving constitutional rights. This study adopts a normative juridical approach by examining legislation, legal doctrines, and Constitutional Court decisions that have had a significant impact on the protection of human rights. The analysis reveals that several rulings of the Court have expanded interpretations of human rights, although challenges remain regarding the consistency of procedural application and the effectiveness of decision enforcement. Therefore, strengthening the procedural law of the Constitutional Court is essential for ensuring the substantive and sustainable protection of human rights in Indonesia.  

The principle of due process of law is a fundamental pillar in every modern legal system, including in the context of procedural law for judicial review of laws at the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia. This principle demands a fair, open, and balanced procedure for all parties to the case. However, in practice, the application of this principle often faces various problems, such as limited access to trial information, limited opportunities to submit evidence, and allegations of impartiality by the constitutional panel of judges. This study aims to critically examine the problems of applying the principle of due process of law in procedural law for judicial review of laws at the Constitutional Court. The research method used is normative juridical with a statutory approach and case studies of several Constitutional Court decisions. The results of the study indicate that there is a discrepancy between the normative provisions governing the principle of a fair trial and the factual implementation in court. This condition has the potential to weaken the legitimacy of the Constitutional Court as the guardian of the constitution and the protection of citizens' constitutional rights. Therefore, efforts are needed to reform procedural law at the Constitutional Court to strengthen the application of the principle of due process of law consistently, transparently, and accountably.

The rapid development of information technology in the digital era has presented new challenges in the protection of personal data. The government as the state administrator has a constitutional obligation to protect the rights of citizens, including the right to privacy. This study aims to analyze the form of government legal accountability in ensuring the protection of people's personal data amidst the increasing threat of information leaks and protection. The research method used is normative juridical with a regulatory-legislative approach as well as case studies and also the opinions of relevant experts. The research findings show that although there are legal instruments such as Law Number 27 of 2022 concerning Personal Data Protection, the effectiveness of its implementation is still limited by a number of factors, including weak supervision. The results of the analysis show that although regulations such as the Personal Data Protection Law have been present, implementation in the field still faces various obstacles, both in terms of law enforcement, public digital literacy, and transparency of permits. The government has a responsibility not only normatively, but also factually to protect personal data through policies that favor the public interest. The government is required not only to form regulations, but also to carry out supervisory and enforcement functions effectively and accountably, and sustainably in order to protect fundamental rights. Therefore, the government's legal responsibility must be realized through consistent real actions in ensuring the security of personal data in the digital era.