[ABSTRAK
Sesuai Undang-Undang Nomor 15 Tahun 2011 tentang Penyelenggara Pemilihan Umum,Dewan Kehormatan Penyelenggara Pemilu/DKPP) adalah sebuah dewan etik independenyang memiliki kewenangan untuk menyelidiki dan memutuskan ada atau tidaknya dugaanpelanggaran kode etik, berikut memberikan sanksi atau rehabilitasi. Dalam prakteknya,DKPP tidak hanya membuat keputusan terkait dengan etika pelanggaran, sanksi, danrehabilitasi tetapi juga memerintahkan Komisi Pemilihan Umum Daerah untuk meninjauulang atau mengubah Keputusan tentang penetapan peserta pemilukada, sementarakewenangan untuk meninjau ulang atau mengubah susbstansi keputusan tata usaha Negaraoleh KPUD adalah Pengadilan Tata Usaha.Fokus tesis ini adalah pemilihan gubernur di Provinsi Jawa Timur sebagai contoh dimanaPutusan DKPP memerintahkan KPUD untuk mengubah keputusan mereka terkaitpenetapan peserta pemilukada yang sebelumnya dinyatakan tidak memenuhi syaratmenjadi peserta pemilukada oleh KPUD. Perintah DKPP semacam ini tidak sejalan denganUndang-Undang Nomor 15 Tahun 2011. Putusan DKPP tidak mengubah prinsip-prinsipdan mekanisme pengujian sebuah keputusan tata usaha Negara sebagaimana diatur dalamUndang-Undang tentang TUN.Mekanisme penyelesaian sengketa TUN terkait pemilukada di PTUN yang tidak sejalandengan proses dan tahapan pemilukada telah mengakibatkan DKPP menjadi pilihan bagicalon peserta pemilukada untuk mendapatkan keadilan. Dari sudut pandang penulis, perludibentuk suatu mekanisme khusus penyelesaian sengeketa TUN terkait pemilukada dilingkungan peradilan TUN yang sejalan dengan keberadaan, tugas, dan kewenanganDKPP.
ABSTRACT
In accordance with Law No. 15 Year 2011 on the General Election Implementers, ElectionOrganizers Ethics Council is an independent ethic council that has authority to investigateand decide on complaints of alleged violations of code of conduct,which include sanctionsor rehabilitations,committed by election organizers (included in the governor/regionalelections). 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 theRegional Election Commission decision.Whereas reviewing and changing KPUDdecisions is Administrative Court authority.This thesis focus on governor election in East Java Province as an example area whichDKPP verdict compelled KPUD to alter their decision related to electoral candidates, whopreviously ruled ineligible, could participate in the election. This mechanism is not in linewith Law No. 15 Year 2011. DKPP verdict should not change the principles andmechanisms of test administrationin Administrative Court asstipulatedin Administrativelaw.Mechanism of election dispute in PTUN is not in line with election process in the regionallevel. Therefore, DKPP be a favourable option for election candidates to gain justice.From author perspective, it is necessarry to establish special administrative resolutionmechanisms 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, ElectionOrganizers Ethics Council is an independent ethic council that has authority to investigateand decide on complaints of alleged violations of code of conduct,which include sanctionsor rehabilitations,committed by election organizers (included in the governor/regionalelections). 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 theRegional Election Commission decision.Whereas reviewing and changing KPUDdecisions is Administrative Court authority.This thesis focus on governor election in East Java Province as an example area whichDKPP verdict compelled KPUD to alter their decision related to electoral candidates, whopreviously ruled ineligible, could participate in the election. This mechanism is not in linewith Law No. 15 Year 2011. DKPP verdict should not change the principles andmechanisms of test administrationin Administrative Court asstipulatedin Administrativelaw.Mechanism of election dispute in PTUN is not in line with election process in the regionallevel. Therefore, DKPP be a favourable option for election candidates to gain justice.From author perspective, it is necessarry to establish special administrative resolutionmechanisms 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, ElectionOrganizers Ethics Council is an independent ethic council that has authority to investigateand decide on complaints of alleged violations of code of conduct,which include sanctionsor rehabilitations,committed by election organizers (included in the governor/regionalelections). 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 theRegional Election Commission decision.Whereas reviewing and changing KPUDdecisions is Administrative Court authority.This thesis focus on governor election in East Java Province as an example area whichDKPP verdict compelled KPUD to alter their decision related to electoral candidates, whopreviously ruled ineligible, could participate in the election. This mechanism is not in linewith Law No. 15 Year 2011. DKPP verdict should not change the principles andmechanisms of test administrationin Administrative Court asstipulatedin Administrativelaw.Mechanism of election dispute in PTUN is not in line with election process in the regionallevel. Therefore, DKPP be a favourable option for election candidates to gain justice.From author perspective, it is necessarry to establish special administrative resolutionmechanisms 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, ElectionOrganizers Ethics Council is an independent ethic council that has authority to investigateand decide on complaints of alleged violations of code of conduct,which include sanctionsor rehabilitations,committed by election organizers (included in the governor/regionalelections). 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 theRegional Election Commission decision.Whereas reviewing and changing KPUDdecisions is Administrative Court authority.This thesis focus on governor election in East Java Province as an example area whichDKPP verdict compelled KPUD to alter their decision related to electoral candidates, whopreviously ruled ineligible, could participate in the election. This mechanism is not in linewith Law No. 15 Year 2011. DKPP verdict should not change the principles andmechanisms of test administrationin Administrative Court asstipulatedin Administrativelaw.Mechanism of election dispute in PTUN is not in line with election process in the regionallevel. Therefore, DKPP be a favourable option for election candidates to gain justice.From author perspective, it is necessarry to establish special administrative resolutionmechanisms in administrative court which it should be along with the existence of DKPP] |
T41606-Susilo Yanuardi.pdf :: Unduh