Establishment Of A General Election Court System In Indonesia

Abstract

General election disputes in Indonesia frequently cause political and legal issues. Unfortunately, an established dispute resolution institution is not available. This article aims to address this need by addressing the reasons existing legal policy on general election dispute resolution has not succeeded in resolving general election disputes transparently, accountably, and fairly, and the legal policy design and requirements of an ideal general election court for the future. This was a normative legal study using a statutory, case, and conceptual approach. The results of the study showed that the existing legal policy of general election dispute resolution has not been manifested as a strong and stable institution. Two courts, namely the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court, with different characters and constitutional mandates, alternately have become the forum for resolving general election disputes. The different procedures and decisions between the two courts often negate each other, causing legal uncertainty which ultimately fails to provide justice. In the future, therefore, it is necessary to establish a general election court institution with a special mandate to adjudicate election disputes based on the Election Law to create legal consistency, legal certainty, and fair settlement of election disputes.