Abstract
<p><em>This study aims to answer three important questions: first, how the 1945 Constitution regulate the authority of the Constitutional Court in resolving dispute on general election as stated in Article 22 E and the regional head election as stipulated in Article 18. Second, how the Constitutional Court, through its rulings, interpret its authority to settle dispute on general election and regional head election. Third, why, in different period, there is a tendency that the Court provide different interpretation regarding its authority to resolve dispute on general election and regional head election. To answer these three questions, this study utilizes doctrinal approach. It analyses the relevant laws and regulation and also the relevant Court rulings. This study concludes that (1) the 1945 Constitution expressly differentiate between regional head election and general election. However, (2) the Court provide different interpretation on determining the nature of regional head election specifically on whether such an election include in the category of general election or it is a distinct election. (3) There are two main factors that may explain why the Court provide different explanation regarding its power to settle dispute on the regional head election and general election. </em></p>
Highlights
The most recent constitutional amendments in 1999-2002 have substantially changed the characteristics of the 1945 Constitution (Valina Singka Subekti, 2008: 69)
Why, in different period, there is a tendency that the Court provide different interpretation regarding its authority to resolve dispute on general election and regional head election
This study concludes that (1) the 1945 Constitution expressly differentiate between regional head election and general election
Summary
The most recent constitutional amendments in 1999-2002 have substantially changed the characteristics of the 1945 Constitution (Valina Singka Subekti, 2008: 69). These amendments established three new state institutions: two judicial institutions and one chamber of the legislature. With regards to the KY, some scholars believe that the KY is not part of judicial institution. This is because the KY does not adjudicate cases. The MA and the MK settle disputes while the KY deals with the nomination of the MA Justices and maintain the dignity and attitudes of Justices (Art 24A, 24B, 24C of the 1945 Constitution)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
