Rizky Bangun Wibisono
Unknown Affiliation

Published : 3 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 3 Documents
Search

Rethinking the Empty Ballot Box in Pilkada: Between Democratic Substance and Legal Formalism Sultoni Fikri; Syofyan Hadi; Baharuddin Riqiey; Rizky Bangun Wibisono
Jurnal Suara Hukum Vol. 7 No. 2 (2025): Jurnal Suara Hukum
Publisher : Universitas Negeri Surabaya

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.26740/jsh.v7n2.p409-436

Abstract

The phenomenon of single-candidate elections in regional head elections (Pilkada) poses challenges to the democratic principles of directness, generality, freedom, confidentiality, honesty, and fairness. To address such electoral impasses, the "empty ballot box" mechanism was introduced through Constitutional Court Decision No. 100/PUU-XIII/2015 and supported by General Election Commission Regulations (PKPU), offering voters an alternative. However, this mechanism raises critical legal and democratic concerns—whether it truly reflects popular sovereignty or merely serves as an administrative formality. This study examines the legal legitimacy, democratic substance, and systemic consequences of the empty ballot box in Pilkada. Using a doctrinal legal methodology with statutory and conceptual approaches, the analysis reveals that the empty box mechanism predominantly acts as an administrative safeguard rather than a vehicle of the people's will. While it ensures procedural continuity, it fails to address the deeper issues of political representation and structural deficiencies in candidate nomination. The dominance of legal positivism in regulating this mechanism neglects principles of substantive justice and meaningful participation. This study argues for a comprehensive legal reform that moves beyond formal compliance and embraces progressive legal principles. Such reform should strengthen political party accountability, support independent candidacies, and expand public participation in candidate nomination. By reframing the empty box through the lens of democratic renewal and human rights, this article contributes a novel critique of electoral design in Indonesia.
Immunity Clause in The 1945 Constitution of The Republic of Indonesia Baharuddin Riqiey; Vieta Imelda Cornelis; Duke Arie Widagdo; Rizky Bangun Wibisono
APHTN-HAN Vol 5 No 1 (2026): JAPHTN-HAN, January 2026
Publisher : Asosiasi Pengajar Hukum Tata Negara dan Hukum Administrasi Negara

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.55292/japhtnhan.v5i1.204

Abstract

Indonesia is a country with a written constitution that contains various substantive provisions governing state structure, the distribution of power, human rights, and limitations on authority. Among these provisions are norms that grant immunity to certain state institutions, commonly referred to as immunity clauses. In the Indonesian constitutional context, immunity clauses are reflected in Article 7C and Article 20A paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. These provisions grant immunity to the House of Representatives (DPR), both institutionally and individually to its members. This raises an important constitutional question as to whether the existence of such immunity clauses is compatible with the principle of equality before the law. This study employs doctrinal legal research using statutory, conceptual, and historical approaches. The findings demonstrate that Article 7C constitutes a logical consequence of Indonesia’s presidential system, under which the President is constitutionally prohibited from dissolving the DPR. Furthermore, the immunity granted under Article 7C and Article 20A paragraph (3) does not contradict the principle of equality before the law, as such immunity is not absolute, remains subject to good faith, and does not preclude legal or ethical accountability for actions taken outside constitutional authority.
Immunity Clause in The 1945 Constitution of The Republic of Indonesia Baharuddin Riqiey; Vieta Imelda Cornelis; Duke Arie Widagdo; Rizky Bangun Wibisono
APHTN-HAN Vol 5 No 1 (2026): JAPHTN-HAN, January 2026
Publisher : Asosiasi Pengajar Hukum Tata Negara dan Hukum Administrasi Negara

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.55292/japhtnhan.v5i1.204

Abstract

Indonesia is a country with a written constitution that contains various substantive provisions governing state structure, the distribution of power, human rights, and limitations on authority. Among these provisions are norms that grant immunity to certain state institutions, commonly referred to as immunity clauses. In the Indonesian constitutional context, immunity clauses are reflected in Article 7C and Article 20A paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. These provisions grant immunity to the House of Representatives (DPR), both institutionally and individually to its members. This raises an important constitutional question as to whether the existence of such immunity clauses is compatible with the principle of equality before the law. This study employs doctrinal legal research using statutory, conceptual, and historical approaches. The findings demonstrate that Article 7C constitutes a logical consequence of Indonesia’s presidential system, under which the President is constitutionally prohibited from dissolving the DPR. Furthermore, the immunity granted under Article 7C and Article 20A paragraph (3) does not contradict the principle of equality before the law, as such immunity is not absolute, remains subject to good faith, and does not preclude legal or ethical accountability for actions taken outside constitutional authority.