Publication Search

The Constitutional Court (MK) Decision Number 55/PHPU.BUP-XXIII/2025 is an important precedent in the dynamics of regional head election law in Indonesia. The Constitutional Court canceled the participation of the North Gorontalo Regent candidate pair because one of the candidates was still undergoing a criminal probation period. This article analyzes the Constitutional Court's legal considerations and their implications for the principle of legal certainty and protection of voters' constitutional rights. This study uses a normative legal approach with a descriptive-qualitative analysis method of laws and regulations and Supreme Court decisions. The results show that the enforcement of strict nomination requirements by the Constitutional Court emphasizes the importance of compliance with the law in the democratic process, while ensuring that regional head candidates have proper moral and legal integrity, this decision also emphasizes that the election process is not only procedural, but also substantial in ensuring the quality of leadership that will be elected. In addition, this decision provides guidelines for election organizers, especially the General Election Commission (KPU), to be more careful in conducting factual verification of candidate requirements. On the other hand, political parties are encouraged to be more selective in nominating candidates, in order to avoid potential legal disputes that could harm public trust in democracy.

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.

Electoral disputes are a frequent phenomenon in the democratic process, especially in Indonesia. This article analyzes various aspects of electoral disputes, including their causes, impacts and existing resolution mechanisms. These disputes usually arise as a result of alleged violations, fraud or dissatisfaction with election results, which can trigger political tensions and undermine public confidence in the democratic system. This research shows that electoral disputes not only affect the outcome of elections, but also have far-reaching implications for constitutional stability, including the potential for social conflict and government legitimacy. Through a normative approach, this article explores the role of the Constitutional Court as an institution authorized to resolve disputes over election results. It also highlights the importance of transparency and fairness in the electoral process to prevent disputes. In addition, the article proposes strategic measures to improve electoral integrity, such as the strengthening of oversight institutions and political education to the public. Thus, it is hoped that the resolution of electoral disputes can be carried out effectively to maintain political stability and the sustainability of democracy in Indonesia.

The Constitutional Court is a judicial institution in Indonesia which was established on August 13, 2003. The Constitutional Court has the authority regulated in article 24C of the 1945 Constitution and Law Number 24 of 2003 concerning the Constitutional Court which was later updated to Law Number 8 of 2011. The Constitutional Court has a principle in making a decision on the material test of the law against the Constitution, which applies to everyone, final, independent and impartial. The Constitutional Court's (MK) decision regarding the age limit for presidential and vice presidential candidates (presidential and vice presidential candidates) in Case Number 90/PUU-XXI/2023 continues to reap pros and cons. In the decision, the Constitutional Court granted part of the application that tested Article 169 letter q of Law Number 7 of 2017 concerning General Elections. This study aims to identify and analyze disputes over the Constitutional Court Decision Number 90/PUU-XXI/2023 concerning the material test of article 169 letter q of Law number 7 of 2017 concerning general elections in terms of juridical aspects. The research method used is a literature study of the Constitutional Court decision Number 90/PUU-XXI/2023 with a focus on normative legal analysis. The results of the study show that the Constitutional Court's decision Number 90/PUU-XXI/2023 is formally inconsistent with Law Number 49 of 2009 concerning Judicial Power and Constitutional Court Regulation No. 2/PMK/2021.