Burden Proof Dilemma of Election Disputes in the Constitutional Court

Abstract

Objective: This research study examines the legal underpinnings, the institutional framework of the electoral laws, and the jurisprudence developed by the Constitutional Court of Indonesia in resolving electoral disputes. The study aimed to investigate whether the dispute resolution mechanisms in our electoral system are rigid, costly, and inefficient and serve to hinder justice by emphasizing technicalities at the expense of substantive justice. The evidentiary process is essential in excavating facts and searching for truth in trials. The burden of proof is carried by the plaintiff to prove the legality of his or her suit. Theoretical Framework: Evidentiary law in the settlement of electoral cases in the Constitutional Court uses a model of legal processes in civil law. Evidentiary law is applied to facilitate the speedy settlement of cases and consider the evidence of the parties to the dispute. Method: The research approach method used in this research is legal normative research. This method helps examine the juridical standards contained in laws and court decisions. Furthermore, library research was conducted to obtain data from primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. Research Implications: According to the conclusions of this study, the improvement of burden-proof procedures will ensure justice and democratic elections in Indonesia. It is hoped that the ideas and issues raised in this paper will help can improve the implementation of burden-proof procedures in the settlement of election disputes at the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia. Results and conclusions: The settlement of election disputes depend on how the dependent proves his/her complaints, which should be improved by the Constitutional Court. Originality/value: Mobilizing the public to actively monitor elections is part of creating a fair-and-democratic election.