[
ABSTRAKSesuai Undang-Undang Nomor 15 Tahun 2011 tentang Penyelenggara Pemilihan Umum,
Dewan Kehormatan Penyelenggara Pemilu/DKPP) adalah sebuah dewan etik independen
yang memiliki kewenangan untuk menyelidiki dan memutuskan ada atau tidaknya dugaan
pelanggaran kode etik, berikut memberikan sanksi atau rehabilitasi. Dalam prakteknya,
DKPP tidak hanya membuat keputusan terkait dengan etika pelanggaran, sanksi, dan
rehabilitasi tetapi juga memerintahkan Komisi Pemilihan Umum Daerah untuk meninjau
ulang atau mengubah Keputusan tentang penetapan peserta pemilukada, sementara
kewenangan untuk meninjau ulang atau mengubah susbstansi keputusan tata usaha Negara
oleh KPUD adalah Pengadilan Tata Usaha.
Fokus tesis ini adalah pemilihan gubernur di Provinsi Jawa Timur sebagai contoh dimana
Putusan DKPP memerintahkan KPUD untuk mengubah keputusan mereka terkait
penetapan peserta pemilukada yang sebelumnya dinyatakan tidak memenuhi syarat
menjadi peserta pemilukada oleh KPUD. Perintah DKPP semacam ini tidak sejalan dengan
Undang-Undang Nomor 15 Tahun 2011. Putusan DKPP tidak mengubah prinsip-prinsip
dan mekanisme pengujian sebuah keputusan tata usaha Negara sebagaimana diatur dalam
Undang-Undang tentang TUN.
Mekanisme penyelesaian sengketa TUN terkait pemilukada di PTUN yang tidak sejalan
dengan proses dan tahapan pemilukada telah mengakibatkan DKPP menjadi pilihan bagi
calon peserta pemilukada untuk mendapatkan keadilan. Dari sudut pandang penulis, perlu
dibentuk suatu mekanisme khusus penyelesaian sengeketa TUN terkait pemilukada di
lingkungan peradilan TUN yang sejalan dengan keberadaan, tugas, dan kewenangan
DKPP.
ABSTRACTIn accordance with Law No. 15 Year 2011 on the General Election Implementers, Election
Organizers Ethics Council is an independent ethic council that has authority to investigate
and decide on complaints of alleged violations of code of conduct,which include sanctions
or rehabilitations,committed by election organizers (included in the governor/regional
elections). In practice, DKPP not only make decisions related to ethic violations, sanctions,
and rehabilitations but also order the election organizers to review and/or change the
Regional Election Commission decision.Whereas reviewing and changing KPUD
decisions is Administrative Court authority.
This thesis focus on governor election in East Java Province as an example area which
DKPP verdict compelled KPUD to alter their decision related to electoral candidates, who
previously ruled ineligible, could participate in the election. This mechanism is not in line
with Law No. 15 Year 2011. DKPP verdict should not change the principles and
mechanisms of test administrationin Administrative Court asstipulatedin Administrative
law.
Mechanism of election dispute in PTUN is not in line with election process in the regional
level. Therefore, DKPP be a favourable option for election candidates to gain justice.
From author perspective, it is necessarry to establish special administrative resolution
mechanisms in administrative court which it should be along with the existence of DKPP;In accordance with Law No. 15 Year 2011 on the General Election Implementers, Election
Organizers Ethics Council is an independent ethic council that has authority to investigate
and decide on complaints of alleged violations of code of conduct,which include sanctions
or rehabilitations,committed by election organizers (included in the governor/regional
elections). In practice, DKPP not only make decisions related to ethic violations, sanctions,
and rehabilitations but also order the election organizers to review and/or change the
Regional Election Commission decision.Whereas reviewing and changing KPUD
decisions is Administrative Court authority.
This thesis focus on governor election in East Java Province as an example area which
DKPP verdict compelled KPUD to alter their decision related to electoral candidates, who
previously ruled ineligible, could participate in the election. This mechanism is not in line
with Law No. 15 Year 2011. DKPP verdict should not change the principles and
mechanisms of test administrationin Administrative Court asstipulatedin Administrative
law.
Mechanism of election dispute in PTUN is not in line with election process in the regional
level. Therefore, DKPP be a favourable option for election candidates to gain justice.
From author perspective, it is necessarry to establish special administrative resolution
mechanisms in administrative court which it should be along with the existence of DKPP;In accordance with Law No. 15 Year 2011 on the General Election Implementers, Election
Organizers Ethics Council is an independent ethic council that has authority to investigate
and decide on complaints of alleged violations of code of conduct,which include sanctions
or rehabilitations,committed by election organizers (included in the governor/regional
elections). In practice, DKPP not only make decisions related to ethic violations, sanctions,
and rehabilitations but also order the election organizers to review and/or change the
Regional Election Commission decision.Whereas reviewing and changing KPUD
decisions is Administrative Court authority.
This thesis focus on governor election in East Java Province as an example area which
DKPP verdict compelled KPUD to alter their decision related to electoral candidates, who
previously ruled ineligible, could participate in the election. This mechanism is not in line
with Law No. 15 Year 2011. DKPP verdict should not change the principles and
mechanisms of test administrationin Administrative Court asstipulatedin Administrative
law.
Mechanism of election dispute in PTUN is not in line with election process in the regional
level. Therefore, DKPP be a favourable option for election candidates to gain justice.
From author perspective, it is necessarry to establish special administrative resolution
mechanisms in administrative court which it should be along with the existence of DKPP, In accordance with Law No. 15 Year 2011 on the General Election Implementers, Election
Organizers Ethics Council is an independent ethic council that has authority to investigate
and decide on complaints of alleged violations of code of conduct,which include sanctions
or rehabilitations,committed by election organizers (included in the governor/regional
elections). In practice, DKPP not only make decisions related to ethic violations, sanctions,
and rehabilitations but also order the election organizers to review and/or change the
Regional Election Commission decision.Whereas reviewing and changing KPUD
decisions is Administrative Court authority.
This thesis focus on governor election in East Java Province as an example area which
DKPP verdict compelled KPUD to alter their decision related to electoral candidates, who
previously ruled ineligible, could participate in the election. This mechanism is not in line
with Law No. 15 Year 2011. DKPP verdict should not change the principles and
mechanisms of test administrationin Administrative Court asstipulatedin Administrative
law.
Mechanism of election dispute in PTUN is not in line with election process in the regional
level. Therefore, DKPP be a favourable option for election candidates to gain justice.
From author perspective, it is necessarry to establish special administrative resolution
mechanisms in administrative court which it should be along with the existence of DKPP]
T41606-Susilo Yanuardi.pdf :: Unduh