Abstract
This study aims to describe the position of the Selection Team at the State Administrative Court, as well as analyze dispute resolution procedures within the scope of the General Election Commission administration. This study uses a normative juridical method. The collected legal material is analyzed using qualitative data analysis methods with a statute approach to describe the problem and answer study purposes. The results show that the position of the Selection Team is a witness in the process of dispute resolution at the State Administrative Court. Furthermore, the detrimental parties may submit an objection and appeal effort. In this case, administrative dispute resolution has been regulated in General Election Commission Regulation No. 3 of 2021. On the other hand, Judges will only adjudicate cases and resolve disputes at the State Administrative Court after the plaintiff has undergone administrative efforts. Therefore, it is recommended for the Judge to reject lawsuits from the plaintiffs if the lawsuit positions the Selection Team as the defendant. In addition, it is also recommended that the plaintiff know and understand dispute resolution procedures on the determination of members of the General Election Commission at the State Administrative Court. In contrast, if the plaintiff has undergone administrative effort while the General Election Commission rejects the effort. So to get legal certainty, the plaintiff must submit a lawsuit by positioning the Commissioner of the General Election Commission as the defendant at the State Administrative Court.
Publisher
CV. Social Politic Genius (SIGn)
Subject
General Earth and Planetary Sciences,General Environmental Science
Reference36 articles.
1. Arato, J. (2012). Constitutionality and Constitutionalism Beyond the State: Two Perspectives on the Material Constitution of the United Nations. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 10(3), 627-659. https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/mor079
2. Bola, M., Librayanto, R., & Arisaputra, M. I. (2015). Korelasi Putusan Hakim Tingkat Pertama, Tingkat Banding, dan Tingkat Kasasi (Suatu Studi tentang Aliran Pemikiran Hukum). Hasanuddin Law Review, 1(1), 27-46. http://dx.doi.org/10.20956/halrev.v1i1.38
3. Decision of the State Administrative Court of Jayapura Number 28/G/2018/PTUN.JPR. http://sipp.ptun-jayapura.go.id/show_detil/ZXloVHVlNkJlTEV3MmVDMEpvSHd5dW5hTk10WHNod0hkcXJGOS94ZGxQTXJRN2tsZkxMcXE0aEVwWkQ4dmdpRDMxREhqd0ZrT0hHRlJyTXV2U1YyMVE9PQ==
4. Decision of the State Administrative Court of Semarang Number 125/G/2018/PTUN.SMG. http://sipp.ptun-semarang.go.id/show_detil/dkxFZGxjY3pzcWpndytLSm83b0lIQVVacldmYlpCWFRNWlppYWE3THMxZlZWcUZSVnAzakN3RzQ5Tk8vQ1RpanN2VVc3YmFucStOZG5SYzF3Z3VFVHc9PQ==
5. Fauzi, I. D. (2018). Desain Badan Peradilan Khusus Pemilihan Kepala Daerah dalam Rangka Menghadapi Pemilihan Kepala Daerah Serentak Nasional Tahun 2024. Jurnal Adhyasta Pemilu, 1(1), 29-41. https://doi.org/10.55108/jap.v1i1.3