<![CDATA[Judicial decisions should reflect legal certainty, utility, and justice as objectives to be achieved through the law enforcement process. Such decisions are based not only on legal facts established during the proceedings but also on legal knowledge, morality, and values of justice prevailing in society. These elements are reflected in judicial reasoning throughout the examination of the case until the final judgment is rendered. In this case, the Supreme Court exercised its authority to conduct judicial review of a sub-statutory regulation (a regulation below the level of a statute) issued by the General Elections Commission. Judgment Number 23 P/HUM/2024 was heard and decided by a panel of justices in the state administrative chamber of the Supreme Court. This study aims to analyze whether the judgment removed the General Elections Commission’s authority and whether the judges acted beyond the scope of their authority in conducting judicial review of sub-statutory regulations. This study employs normative legal research using a case approach. The findings indicate that the judges held that the General Elections Commission regulation was contrary to the statute and that the ages of regional head and deputy regional head candidates should be calculated as of the date of inauguration of the elected candidates. The study finds that the judgment has the effect of removing the General Elections Commission’s authority to determine the age limit for regional head and deputy regional head candidates. Furthermore, the study indicates that the judgment exceeded the scope of the judges’ authority in conducting substantive judicial review of regulations below the level of a statute.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
