<![CDATA[Electoral dispute resolution has become a critical pillar for safeguarding democratic legitimacy in Indonesia, particularly as regional head elections have led to an increasing number of legal disputes. In the 2024–2025 electoral cycle alone, the Constitutional Court registered 309 lawsuits against regional election results, but only a small fraction made it past the dismissal stage. Although normatively justified as a means of ensuring efficiency under strict constitutional deadlines, the dismissal procedure has evolved into a decisive gatekeeping function whose application significantly shapes access to constitutional justice. However, concerns are growing about inconsistencies in judicial reasoning, disparities between similar cases, and the potential erosion of legal certainty, particularly evident in conflicting rulings in disputes such as Boven Digoel and Belu. This study critically examines the philosophical–juridical basis and practical implementation of the dismissal procedure in electoral adjudication in Indonesia. Drawing on doctrinal analysis and empirical examination of selected cases, this study investigates whether the mechanism fulfills its normative purpose while maintaining justice, certainty, and equality before the law. The findings reveal structural tensions between procedural efficiency and substantive justice, highlighting how the exercise of judicial discretion at the dismissal stage can both enable and limit electoral accountability. The study contributes to constitutional scholarship by reframing dismissal as a judicial gatekeeping doctrine and offering analytical criteria, such as doctrinal predictability, procedural transparency, and access optimization for assessing coherence and transparency in screening practices. Building on these criteria, the study proposes concrete measures for legal reform: standardized, publicly reasoned dismissal templates; inter-panel doctrinal harmonization guidelines; and a state-supported legal aid scheme for petitioners from resource-limited regions, offering the Constitutional Court, lawmakers, and election administrators an actionable roadmap for strengthening procedural safeguards, enhancing public trust, and promoting more consistent standards in electoral dispute resolution.]]>
