<![CDATA[The design of the regional elections (Pilkada, Pemilihan Kepala Daerah) court as a mechanism for resolving disputes over the results of the regional elections is experiencing changing dynamics. The dynamics of these changes are due to the different interpretations of Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) on the regional election provisions in the 1945 Constitution. This study seeks to elaborate in depth on the inconsistencies in the Constitutional Court's interpretation of the constitutionality of regional elections, which caused ambivalence in the design of regional election dispute resolution. It employs a normative legal research model and a case approach. This research also shows the Constitutional Court's process and articulation of constitutional interpretation in constructing regional electoral justice. Based on the analysis, this study concludes that the shift in the constitutionality of regional election dispute resolution is caused by the constitutional interpretation of the phrase "democratically elected" in Article 18 paragraph (4), which has been interpreted dynamically and differently by the Constitutional Court. This is proven in several decisions, including Constitutional Court Decision No. 072-073/PUU-II/2004, No. 97/PUU-XI/2013, and No. 85/PUU-XX/2022. In line with developments in the constitutionality of general elections (Pemilu, Pemilihan Umum), the Constitutional Court has reconstructed regional elections as part of the general election. The Constitutional Court will always have the ability to settle regional election disputes. As a result, to protect electoral justice, it is vital to improve legislation and enhance the institution.]]>
Copyrights © 2023
