Considering the Legal Efforts of Dispute Decisions on Election Results of the Constitutional Court

Article Sidebar

Published Aug 31, 2018
DOI https://doi.org/10.15294/snh.v4i03.27101

Main Article Content

Galang Taufani
Fakultas Hukum, Univesitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta

Abstract

Article 24C Paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution confirms that the Constitutional Court (MK) has the authority to adjudicate at the first and last level with a final decision to review the Law against the Constitution. Related to election disputes, the Constitutional Court has the authority to adjudicate dispute cases and the Constitutional Court's decision is final and binding. It is undeniable that this matter becomes a debate, what if in the course of finding new evidence (novum) or what is the possibility of legal remedies in election disputes. This paper will try to explore what is the philosophy of the legal remedies and how it might be used in election disputes. By appealing to philosophical thinking it is hoped that a new thought can be drawn on these possibilities.

Article Details

How to Cite
Taufani, G. (2018). Considering the Legal Efforts of Dispute Decisions on Election Results of the Constitutional Court. Law Research Review Quarterly, 4(3), 861-878. https://doi.org/10.15294/snh.v4i03.27101
Issue
Vol 4 No 3 (2018): L. Research Rev. Q. (August 2018) "Law and Democracy in General Election: Between Integrity and Law Part I"
Section
RESEARCH ARTICLE

All writings published in this journal are personal views of the authors and do not represent the views of this journal and the author's affiliated institutions. Author(s) are retain the copyrights of the Article. However, before publishing, it is required to obtain written confirmation from Author(s) in order to ensure the originality (Author Statement of Originality). The statement is to be signed by at least one of the authors who have obtained the assent of the co-author(s) where applicable.This work licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0)

References

Soetandyo Wignjosubroto, (1993) “Beberapa Persoalan Paradigmatik dalam Teori dan Konsekuensinya atas Pilihan Metode yang akan Dipakai (Metode Kuantitatif Versus Metode Kualitatif)”, Makalah, (Pascasarjanan Universitas Airlangga, 1993).
Amiruddin dan Zainal Asikin, (2004) Pengantar Metode Penenlitian Hukum, (Jakarta : Raja Grafindo Perasada,
Hans George Gadamer. (2007) The Gadamer Reader: A Bouquet of the Later Writings. Edited by Richard E Palmer. (Illionis..Northwestern University Press. 2007).
Hans George Gadamer. (2006). Truth and Method. Continuum Publising Group. New York. p. 15Gregory Leyh. Legal Hermeneutics : History, Theory, and Practice. (California: University of California Press).
Jimly Asshiddiqie, Konstitusi dan Konstitusionalisme Indonesia, Jakarta: Rajawali.
Fickar Hadjar, (2003), Pokok-Pokok Pikiran dan Rancangan Undang-. Undang Mahkamah Konstitusi, KRHN dan Kemitraan, Jakarta.
Daniel Little, (1991), Varieties of Social Explanation: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Social Science, Oxford: Westview Press.
David E Linge, (1976), ”Editor’s Introduction,” Hans-Georg Gadamer, Philosophical Hermeneutics, Berkeley, University of California Press,
Maruar Siahaan, (2011) Hukum Acara Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia, Jakarta :
Sinar Grafika, 2011.
Tri Andrisman, (2010) , Hukum Acara Pidana, Lampung, Universitas Lampung.
Lilik Mulyadi. (2007) Kekuasaan Kehakiman, Bina Ilmu, Surabaya.
Ahmad Rifa (2010), Penemuan Hukum oleh Hakim dalam Persfektif Hukum Progresif. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika.