Keadilan Pemilu Dalam Perkara Pidana Pemilu: Studi terhadap Putusan Pengadilan

Abstract

Electoral justice can be seen from at least two important aspects, namely the procedure of the election implementation and the mechanism for resolving election-related offences. Election-related offences are understood as actions that are contrary to the provisions of laws and regulations relating to elections. One of the said election-related offences is resolved through the District Court. However, reflecting on the completion of criminal acts in the 2019 legislative elections, electoral justice has not been successful. Of all the decisions of the District Courts in Yogyakarta and West Sumatra that have been analyzed, all of them issued probation to the perpetrator, regardless of the position of the perpetrator, the type of crime, and other aggravating reasons at trial. This study looks at the tendency of judges in deciding cases of election criminal violations and encourages the optimization of electoral justice in these decisions. This normative legal research emphasizes the use of secondary data, especially the decisions of District Court judges in Yogyakarta and West Sumatra. The results of the study show that first, the tendency of decisions to give very light sentences to perpetrators. Second, electoral justice has not been optimally obtained through the District Court because of the lightness of the sentence issued. This is because judges only consider the juridical aspect alone, without seeing the election as a real implementation of the sovereignty of the people as well as various other philosophical and sociological considerations.