How to handle the administrative violations in the Election? A Discourse of Characteristic of Bawaslu Verdict
| Autor: | Luthfi Dwi Yoga |
|---|---|
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Rok vydání: | 2022 |
| Předmět: | |
| Zdroj: | Journal of Law and Legal Reform, Vol 3, Iss 3, Pp 349-378 (2022) |
| Druh dokumentu: | article |
| ISSN: | 2715-0941 2715-0968 |
| DOI: | 10.15294/jllr.v3i3.55058 |
| Popis: | One of the impacts of strengthening the Election Supervisory Body (Bawaslu)’s authorityfrom the central level to Regency/City level in handling election administrative violations is to guarantee thecertainty of law for the justice seekers. This is based on the authority to examine and decide on allegations of handling election administrative violations. The authority to handle this violation is based on the Article 461 paragraph (1) of Law Number 7 of 2017 about Election. Bythe authority, Bawaslu is a semi-judicial or quasi-judicial institution. The output of the handling is in the form of verdict such as court verdict in general which have final and binding power and have execution force for the ranks of the Elections Commission (KPU). This executive power can be seen in verdict that can be directly executed without having to wait or require approval from the KPU through the issuance of verdict. As a final verdict, the verdict of Bawaslu, Provincial Bawaslu and Regency/City Bawaslu also have constitutive and condemnatory characteristic nature.With these characteristics, the purpose of issuing a Bawaslu verdict is to finalizing administrative violation caseof the election. However, at the practical level, the nature of the final and binding does not apply to Provincial Bawaslu and Regency/City Bawaslu. This can be seen in the existence of legal remedies against the verdict through a request for correction to the RI Bawaslu (central). |
| Databáze: | Directory of Open Access Journals |
| Externí odkaz: |
|