Impact of Structured, Systematic and Massive Violations In the General Election

Mahyudin Mahyudin(1*), Edy Haryanto(2), Rahmah Marsinah(3),

(1) 1. Ibnu Chaldun University of Jakarta 2. Garuda Muda Institute
(2) Ibnu Chaldun University of Jakarta
(3) Ibnu Chaldun University of Jakarta
(*) Corresponding Author
DOI: https://doi.org/10.23917/laj.v5i2.11811

Abstract

Authority in resolving disputes regarding the results of general elections is the authority of the constitutional court granted by the constitution. While the authority in resolving violations is structured, systematic and massive is the authority of the electoral supervisory body granted by law. In the dispute over the results of the general election, which was decided by the constitutional court, the constitutional court did not have the authority to test the petition filed on the basis of a structured, systematic and massive violation because the constitutional court only based on the dispute over the results as intended in its authority. The court verdict has been in accordance with the authority held according to the original instruction given by the constitution, which wants the implementation of elections that are sovereign and carried out on a direct, public, free, confidential, honest and fair basis.

Keywords

Structured, Systematic And Massive Violations, Constitutional Court, General Election Supervisory Body

Full Text:

PDF

References

Ackerman, B. (2007). The Holmes Lectures : The Living Constitution.

Aliens, L., Of, M., & Suffrage, A. (1992). CONSTITUTIONAL AND THEORETICAL MEANINGS OF ALIEN SUFFRAGE.

Beyond the Margin of Litigation: Reforming U.S. Election Administration to Avoid Electoral Meltdown. (2005). Washington and Lee Law Review, 62(3), 937.

Blanchard, O., De-, M., Glaeser, E., Panunzi, F., Polo, M., Rey, P., … Uni-, B. (1997). SEPARATION OF POWERS AND POLITICAL ACCOUNTABILITY

Bradley, C. A., & Morrison, T. W. (2012). Historical Gloss and the Separation of Powers Harvard Law Review. Source: Harvard Law Review, 126(2), 411–485. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23414504%5Cnhttp://about.jstor.org/terms

Carole Pateman. (1970). ]PARTICIPATION AND DEMOCRATIC . ’ THEORY - Google Search. University of Cambridge, 16. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=%5DPARTICIPATION+AND+DEMOCRATIC+.+%27+THEORY

Croissant, A. (2000). Electoral Politics in Southeast and East Asia : A Comparative Perspective. Electoral Politics in Southeast and East Asia, 321–368.

Ferree, M. M., Gamson, W. A., Gerhards, J., & Rucht, D. (2002). Four models of the public sphere in modern democracies. Theory and Society, 31(3), 289–324. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016284431021

GinsburgC, T. (2003). Judicial review in new democracies: Constitutional courts in asian cases. Judicial Review in New Democracies: Constitutional Courts in Asian Cases, 1–295. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511511189

Graber, M. A., & Graber, M. A. (2014). Constitutional Interpretation. A New Introduction to American Constitutionalism, 79, 65–99. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199943883.003.0004

Habermas, J. (2001). Constitutional democracy: A paradoxical union of contradictory principles? Political Theory, 29(6), 766–781. https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591701029006002

Harijanti, S. D., & Lindsey, T. (2006). Indonesia: General elections test the amended Constitution and the new Constitutional Court. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 4(1), 138–150. https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moi055

Hart, H. M. (2006). The Aims of the Criminal Law. Law and Contemporary Problems, 23(3), 401. https://doi.org/10.2307/1190221

Konstitusi, M. (2019). Putusan Pilpres 2019 (Vol. 8).

Reynolds, J. E. and A. (2000). the Impa C T O F Election a D M I N I S T R At I O N on the Legitimacy O F Emerging Democracies : (September).

Tan, P. J. (2006). Indonesia Seven Years after Soeharto: Party System Institutionalization in a New Democracy. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 28(1), 88–114. https://doi.org/10.1355/cs28-1e

Tierney, S. (2009). Constitutional Referendums: A Theoretical Enquiry. Modern Law Review, 72(3), 360–383. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2009.00749.x

Urbinati, N. (2000). Representation as advocacy: A study of democratic deliberation. Political Theory, 28(6), 758–786. https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591700028006003

Ware12.pdf. (n.d.).

Welzel, C., & Inglehart, R. (2008). The Role of Ordinary People in Democratization. Journal of Democracy, 19(1), 126–140. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2008.0009

Article Metrics

Abstract view(s): 284 time(s)
PDF: 238 time(s)

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.