Lestari, Rahayuning Triani (2025) Analisis Yuridis Terhadap Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 1/phpu/pres.xxi/2024 Tentang Perselisihan Hasil Pemilihan Umum Presiden Dan Wakil Presiden Tahun 2024. Other thesis, Universitas Islam Riau.

Text 211010110.pdf - Submitted Version Restricted to Registered users only Download (1MB) | Request a copy

Abstract

Constitutional Court Decision No. 1/PHPU.PRES-XXII/2024: A Landmark in Resolving the 2024 Presidential and Vice Presidential Election Dispute Constitutional Court Decision No. 1/PHPU.PRES-XXII/2024 marks a significant milestone in resolving disputes over the results of the 2024 Presidential and Vice Presidential Election. The Court upheld the legality of the election results by rejecting the petition, despite the petitioners' claims of alleged structured, systematic, and massive (TSM) violations. The Court ruled that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove fraud that significantly impacted the election results. This decision was accompanied by a dissenting opinion from three constitutional justices—Saldi Isra, Enny Nurbaningsih, and Arief Hidayat—who highlighted concerns over alleged TSM violations and the involvement of state officials in the election. The dissenting opinions reveal differences in legal approaches within the Court, where a legal-formalistic approach remains dominant, while substantive justice receives less attention. This study employs a statutory and conceptual approach, utilizing secondary data sources such as legal literature, regulations, and previous court rulings. The findings indicate: 1). Constitutional Court Decision No. 1/PHPU.PRES-XXII/2024 reinforces the legitimacy of the 2024 Presidential and Vice Presidential Election results by rejecting the petition for election disputes. In its considerations, the Court categorized key issues into six clusters, including election management independence, candidate eligibility, social assistance distribution, state officials' neutrality, election procedures, and the use of the Sirekap application. Despite allegations of TSM violations, the Court determined that the evidence presented was insufficient to substantiate significant fraud. The dissenting opinions from three constitutional justices highlighted differences in interpreting facts and evidence, particularly regarding TSM violations and state officials' involvement in the election. Justice Saldi Isra emphasized the need for an effective dispute resolution mechanism, while Justice Enny Nurbaningsih criticized President Joko Widodo's actions, which were seen as compromising governmental neutrality. Meanwhile, Justice Arief Hidayat pointed to indications of government interference in the 2024 Simultaneous Election, which potentially deviated from the principles outlined in Article 22E (1) of the 1945 Constitution. These dissenting opinions reflect fundamental issues within Indonesia's legal and constitutional system, where a rigid legal-formalistic approach hinders the enforcement of substantive justice. 2). The dissenting opinions from the three constitutional justices further highlight differences in interpreting facts and evidence, particularly concerning TSM violations and the role of state officials in the election. Justice Saldi Isra underscored the importance of an effective dispute resolution mechanism to uphold electoral justice, while Justice Enny Nurbaningsih stressed the significance of ethics in election administration. Justice Arief Hidayat argued that the principles of fair and honest democracy faced significant challenges due to executive interference in the election process. These differing views underscore fundamental issues within Indonesia’s legal and constitutional framework, where procedural legal formalism continues to dominate court rulings, while substantive justice remains underemphasized.

Actions (login required)

View Item