Penyelesaian Sengketa Pilkada Serentak 2015 dalam Perspektif Electoral Justice System

Bambang Eka Cahya Widodo


Electoral disputes interpreted as a complaint, protests, claims, cancellations, and contestation in the electoral process related. In the implementation of the elections including the concurrently local election 2015 disputes is necessary thing happened. In the perspective of electoral justice system, dispute resolution must meet the elements such the right to a settlement of electoral disputes; the election standard devices and procedures are clearly defined; the electoral dispute resolution body who have the knowledge and impartiality; the judicial systems that facilitate the achievement of the decision; the existence of clear regulations concerning the burden of proof and standard of submission of evidence clearly defined; the effective settlement system and meaningful and the effective of stakeholders education. This article intended to examine and assess whether the electoral dispute resolution system that is prepared for concurrent local election is adequate or not in the perspective of electoral justice system. Method used is by analyzing 2015 concurrent election legal framework and institutional framework for organizing and analyzing the elements of the institutional framework of the institutions involved in the resolution of electoral disputes in the concurrent election of 2015. In addition, the analysis was also directed at other aspects in the resolution of electoral disputes such as the availability of prevention system (preventive system) and alternative dispute resolution system that can be used in the concurrently election dispute resolution 2015. The analysis also uses actual cases that develop during the stages of the concurrent elections for comparison purposes in the implementation of regulations disputed election, as well as to examine the capacity and capability of the electoral dispute resolution body that are responsible for the settlement of electoral disputes.


electoral dispute resolution; regulation; electoral justice system

Full Text:



Henriquez-Jesus Orozco. 2010. Electoral Justice: The International IDEA Handbook. Stockholm.

Henriquez Jesus Orozco and Avila Raul. 2004. Electoral Dispute Resolution Systems: Towards A Handbook and Related Material. Mexico City.

Kambo, Gustiana A., dan Achmad Zulfikar. 2015. Prosiding Seminar Nasional Pilkada Serentak. Makassar: Program Studi Ilmu Politik Universitas Hasanuddin.s

Petit, Denis. 2000. Resolving Election Disputes inthe OSCE Area: Towards a standard Election Dispute Monitoring System. Warsaw: OSCE-ODIHR.

Reynolds Andrew. 2008. Reilly Ben and Ellis Andrew, Electoral System Design, The New International IDEA Handbook, Stockholm.

Roberts, Avery-Davis. 2009. International Obligations for Electoral Dispute Resolution. The Carter Center.

Surbakti, Ramlan Prof dkk. 2008. Perekayasaan Sistem Pemilihan Umum. Jakarta: Kemitraan.

Vickery, Chad (ed). 2011. Pedoman untuk Memahami, Menangani dan Menyelesaikan Sengketa Pemilu. Washington DC: IFES.

Wall Alan, Ellis Andrew, et all. 2006. Electoral Management Design: The International IDEA Handbook. Stockholm.

Majalah Konstitusi No.82 - Desember 2013


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

The POLITICS Journal has been indexed in :

See Google Scholar Profile for The POLITICS Journal by clicking here

The POLITICS : Jurnal Magister Ilmu Politik Universitas Hasanuddin
Print ISSN (P-ISSN) : 2407-9138 Electronic ISSN (E-ISSN): 2527-2829

The POLITICS Editorial Office
FISIP UNHAS Building 2nd Floor
Tamalanrea Campus
Jl. Perintis Kemerdekaan Km. 10, Makassar, South Sulawesi, Indonesia, 90245