THE REMOVAL OF THE GENERAL ELECTIONS COMMISSION’S AUTHORITY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29123/jy.v19i1.774Keywords:
regional head candidate age, judicial review, regional head electionAbstract
Judicial decisions should reflect legal certainty, utility, and justice as objectives to be achieved through the law enforcement process. Such decisions are based not only on legal facts established during the proceedings but also on legal knowledge, morality, and values of justice prevailing in society. These elements are reflected in judicial reasoning throughout the examination of the case until the final judgment is rendered. In this case, the Supreme Court exercised its authority to conduct judicial review of a sub-statutory regulation (a regulation below the level of a statute) issued by the General Elections Commission. Judgment Number 23 P/HUM/2024 was heard and decided by a panel of justices in the state administrative chamber of the Supreme Court. This study aims to analyze whether the judgment removed the General Elections Commission’s authority and whether the judges acted beyond the scope of their authority in conducting judicial review of sub-statutory regulations. This study employs normative legal research using a case approach. The findings indicate that the judges held that the General Elections Commission regulation was contrary to the statute and that the ages of regional head and deputy regional head candidates should be calculated as of the date of inauguration of the elected candidates. The study finds that the judgment has the effect of removing the General Elections Commission’s authority to determine the age limit for regional head and deputy regional head candidates. Furthermore, the study indicates that the judgment exceeded the scope of the judges’ authority in conducting substantive judicial review of regulations below the level of a statute.
References
Achmad, A., & Mulyanto, M. (2013). Problematika pengujian peraturan perundang-undangan (Judicial review) pada Mahkamah Agung dan Mahkamah Konstitusi. Jurnal Yustitia, 2(1), 57-65. https://doi.org/10.20961/yustisia.v2i1.11070.
Ade, A., & Cahaya, S. (2026). Analisa konstitusionalitas dalam kerangka negara hukum hak atas kepastian hukum dalam judicial review ketentuan PTUN. Jurnal Kebijakan Reformasi Hukum, 10(1), 47-53.
Asnawi, M. N. (2014). Hermeneutika putusan hakim. Yogyakarta: UII Pres.
Chalid, H. A. (2017). Dualism of judicial review in Indonesia: Problems and solutions. Indonesia Law Review, 7(3), 367-394. https://doi.org/10.15742/ilrev.v7n3.353.
Gandara, M. (2020). Kewenangan atribusi, delegasi dan mandat. Khazanah Hukum, 2(3), 92-99. https://doi.org/10.15575/kh.v2i3.8187.
Gunawan, M. S., & Mujahidah, N. (2024). Dinamika pemilihan kepala daerah: Menilik Putusan Mahkamah Agung, Mahkamah Konstitusi dan Peraturan KPU RI. Jurnal Al Mutsla, 6(2), 358-387. https://doi.org/10.46870/jstain.v6i2.1240.
Hasibuan, H. A. L., & Nst, A. H. (2023). Motede penafsiran hukum sebagai alat mencari keadilan hakiki. Jurnal Legisia, 15(2), 136-145.
Hazmi, R. M., Arman, Z., & Sari, S. (2023). Purifikasi konsep diskriminasi dalam pengaturan remisi narapidana korupsi (Studi putusan uji materil Mahkamah Agung). Supremasi Jurnal Hukum, 6(1), 1-21.
Huda. N. (2021). Kedudukan dan materi muatan peraturan menteri dalam perspektif sistem presidensial. Jurnal Hukum Ius Quia Iustum, 28(3), 550-571. https://doi.org/10.20885/iustum.vol28.iss3.art5.
Kusyandi, A., & Yamin, S. (2023). Disparitas putusan hakim pidana berkualitas yang mencerminkan rasa keadilan dalam sistem hukum Indonesia. Jurnal Yustitia, 9(1), 122-132. https://doi.org/10.31943/yustitia.v9i1.173.
Mertokusumo, S. (1996). Mengenal hukum, suatu pengantar. Yogyakarta: Liberty.
Putra, D. S., & Ansorullah. (2022). Kewenangan Mahkamah Agung dalam judicial review terhadap peraturan perundang-undangan di bawah undang-undang. Limbago: Journal of Constitutional Law, 2(1), 53-63.
Qomar, N. (2012). Kewenangan judicial review Mahkamah Konstitusi. Jurnal Konstitusi, 1(1), 1-15.
Ramdani, M. A. K., Harjanto, S. D., & Sungkar, L. (2025). Orientasi rigid dan moderat dalam penafsiran original intent dan praktiknya di Indonesia. Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan, 55(1), 103-122.
Rosadi, E. (2016).Putusan hakim yang berkadilan. Badamai Law Journal, 1(1), 381-400.
Sanjaya, U. H. (2015). Keadilan hukum pada pertimbangan hakim dalam memutus hak asuh anak. Yuridika, 30(2), 352-367. https://doi.org/10.20473/ydk.v30i2.4653.
Simanjuntak, E. (2013). Kewenangan uji materil ada Mahkamah Agung RI. Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan, 2(3), 337-356. https://doi.org/10.25216/jhp.2.3.2013.337-356.
Soekanto, S., & Mamudji, S. (2013). Penelitian hukum normatif, suatu tinjauan singkat. Jakarta: Raja Grafindo.
Susanto, S. N. (2020). Metode perolehan dan batas-batas wewenang pemerintahan. Administrative Law & Governance Journal, 3(3), 430-441.
Sutiyoso, B. (2010). Mencari format ideal keadilan putusan dalam peradilan. Jurnal Hukum Ius Qua Iustum, 17(2), 217-232.
Tim Penyempurnaan Risalah. (2010). Risalah perubahan UUD Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945, Tahun Sidang 2001. Buku Ketiga, Edisi Revisi. Jakarta: Sekretariat Jenderal MPR.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Imran Imran, Muslih Anhar
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
