Pergeseran Rezim Sistem Pemilihan Kepala Daerah di Indonesia

Abstract

Penelitian ini bertujuan menguraikan pergeseran sistem pemilihan kepala daerah dari rezim pemilihan umum ke rezim Pemerintahan Daerah. Pergeseran ini berdampak kepada peralihan kewenangan penyelesaian sengketa dari Mahkamah Konstitusi ke Mahkamah Agung sebagai konsekuensi Putusan MK Nomor 97/PUU–XI/2013. Putusan MK berimpilikasi kepada sistem pemilihan kepala daerah (Pilkada) yang berada di rezim pemilihan umum beralih ke rezim pemerintahan daerah, setelah putusan tersebut undang-undang mengamanatkan pembentukan peradilan khusus Pilkada yang berada di bawah kekuasaan Mahkamah Agung. Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan yuridis normatif dengan bertumpu pada studi dokumen berupa bahan hukum. Penelitian menyimpulkan bahwa meski tidak lagi menjadi kewenangan MK untuk mengadili perkara Pilkada, MK masih mengadili sengketa Pilkada hingga peradilan khusus Pilkada terbentuk. Peradilan khusus Pilkada selain mengadili sengketa hasil dapat mengadili sengketa proses, terkait sengketa administrasi Pilkada, sengketa Pidana Pilkada termasuk mengadili perihal election fraud dan corrupt campaign practice. Sistem penyelesaian sengketa Pilkada dilakukan melalui satu atap, sehingga tidak terjadi tumpang tindih putusan seperti yang terjadi selama ini. Shifting of Regime on Regional Election System in Indonesia This study aims to describe the shift of the regional election system from the general election regime to the regional district regime. The shift has an impact on the tranfer of authority to resolve disputes from Constitutional Court to Supreme Court as a consequence of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 97/PUU-XI/2013. The decision implied to the regional election system (Pilkada) which was in the electoral regime moved to the regional government regime, after the ruling mandated the establishment of a special election court under the authority of the Supreme Court. This research uses a normative juridical approach by analyzing law documents. The research concluded that although adjudicating of regional election disputes was no longer under the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court, but the Court still adjudicate election disputes until a special court was formed. In addition to adjudicating disputes over results, the Election Special Court can also adjudicate election disputes related to process, administrative, criminal disputes including hearing about election fraud and corrupt campaign practice. Pilkada dispute resolution system is done through one roof, so there is no overlapping of decisions as has happened so far.

Why the coalition of political party are weak in election of regional head (Legal and Political Perspective)

“…Introduction The election of governors and deputy governors, regents and deputy regents, mayors, and deputy mayors (regional head elections) since 2014 is regulated by a separate law. This arrangement is an affirmation that the regional head election is part of the regional autonomy regime so that it has an impact on the institutions that resolve disputes over the election results (Ahmad, 2019). Election of regional heads as the implementation of a democratic system and how to achieve regional leadership to achieve general welfare plays an important role in maintaining the quality of regional leadership and building communication with the people.…”