Abstract
The existence of the House of Representatives (DPD) in including regional inputs in the form of norms has experienced polemics. These polemics include the decisions of the State Administrative Court (PTUN), the Supreme Court (MA), and the Constitutional Court (MK) that are out of sync with one another. This decision has the impact of legal dualism which results in confusion for the General Election Commission (KPU) to carry out its functions and even disharmony between legal norms. This normative research aims to determine the existence of a basis to support the DPD in order to reduce conflicts of interest. As a result, the KPU, when viewed from the normative aspect, the Constitutional Court is the sole interpreter of the constitution because of the authority granted by the constitution in Article 24 C. If so, then the KPU does not have to worry about implementing the Constitutional Court's decision because it is constitutional. That is, the KPU carrying out the Constitutional Court's Decision means maintaining the dignity of the DPR so that the aspirations carried out truly represent the needs of the region without worrying about conflicts of interest because they have as administrators of political parties.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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.
