Akbar, Sabri (2025) Tinjauan Yuridis Terhadap Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia Nomor 90/puu-xxi/2023 Terhadap Pengujian Undang-undang Nomor 7 Tahun 2017 Tentang Pemilihann Umum. Other thesis, Universitas Islam Riau.

Text 211010562.pdf - Submitted Version Restricted to Registered users only Download (3MB) | Request a copy

Abstract

This research is motivated by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia Decision Number 90/PUU-XXI/2023 concerning the judicial review of Law Number 7 of 2017 on General Elections, which became a public highlight due to the change in the minimum age requirement for Vice Presidential candidates. Although the petition was submitted by Almas Tsaqibbirru Re A, a student with questionable legal standing, this decision led to significant and controversial changes. This has sparked criticism, especially concerning the inconsistency of the ruling and the procedural issues followed. Therefore, it is important to conduct an in-depth examination of the legal implications and the alignment of this decision with the principles of the Rule of Law. The research questions in this study are how the legal standing of the petitioner in the Constitutional Court Decision Number 90/PUU-XXI/2023 concerning the judicial review of Law Number 7 of 2017 on General Elections is assessed, and what are the differences between the rulings of Constitutional Court Decision Number 55/PUUXXI/2023 and Decision Number 90/PUU-XXI/2023 regarding the judicial review of Law Number 7 of 2017 on General Elections. In this study, the author uses normative legal research, a library-based research method, which involves studying books, regulations, and writings related to the topic through a descriptive-analytical approach to provide a clear and detailed overview of the Legal Review of Constitutional Court Decision Number 90/PUU-XXI/2023 concerning the Judicial Review of Law Number 7 of 2017 on General Elections. The results of this study find that in Constitutional Court Decision Number 90/PUU-XXI/2023, the legal standing of the petitioner, Almas Tsaqibbirru Re A, was found to not meet the requirements established in Article 51 Paragraph (1) of Law No. 24 of 2003 and Article 4 Paragraph (2) of the Constitutional Court Regulation No. 2 of 2021. This is because the petitioner was unable to demonstrate constitutional harm that was directly, specifically, or actually related to the provision being reviewed. In contrast, in Decision Number 55/PUU-XXI/2023, there is a difference in the outcome influenced by the inconsistency of the judges, particularly Judges Enny Nurbaningsih and Daniel Yusmic P Foech, who were influenced by a conflict of interest involving Judge Anwar Usman, which affected the objectivity and integrity of the decision-making and caused inconsistent rulings that did not align with the principles of justice and law.

Actions (login required)

View Item