<![CDATA[Electoral integrity is a key requirement for democratic legitimacy, but the misuse of public resources by candidates is a serious problem in both Indonesia and Malaysia. This article compares the disqualification mechanisms of the two countries using normative legal research methods with a case study and comparative approach. The legal materials used include legislation, court decisions, and relevant literature. The findings show that Indonesia implements a pluralistic mechanism involving the Election Supervisory Agency (Bawaslu), the General Elections Commission (KPU), the District Court (PN), the Supreme Court (MA), and the Constitutional Court (MK), which results in complexity, overlapping authorities, and legal uncertainty. In contrast, Malaysia places the Election Court and the Ordinary Court as forums, making it simpler and providing legal certainty, but facing challenges of litigation costs, limited access, and a highly technical-procedural process. In addition, there are more precedents of disqualification in Indonesia than in Malaysia, but their effectiveness is still hampered by standards of proof, time constraints, and inconsistent rulings. This research confirms that the disqualification mechanism is not only a procedural instrument but also a substantive one in maintaining electoral justice and the quality of democracy. Thus, it is necessary to strengthen the standards of evidence, institutional coordination, transparency of decisions, and increase civil society participation. The combination of clarity of forums as in Malaysia with early monitoring mechanisms as in Indonesia has the potential to create a more effective system for upholding electoral integrity.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
