{"title":"KONSTITUSIONALITAS KAIDAH PERSENTASE SELISIH SUARA UNTUK MENGAJUKAN PERMOHONAN PERSELISIHAN HASIL PEMILUKADA DI MK RI","authors":"Aristo Antade","doi":"10.24246/alethea.vol2.no1.p45-60","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Hak atas persamaan di hadapan hukum serta hak atas upaya hukum yang efektif merupakan hak konstitusional yang melandasi undang-undang. Kedua hak tersebut, menghendaki setiap orang yang ingin memperjuangkan keadilan dan kebenaran harus difasilitas dan tidak boleh dibatasi oleh undang-undang. Pasal 158 ayat (1) dan ayat (2) UU No. 10 Tahun 2016 memuat kaidah persentase selisih suara sebagai syarat untuk dapat mengajukan permohonan perselisihan hasil Pilgub, Pilbup dan Pilkot di Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia yang pada dasarnya membatasi pemohon untuk memperjuangkan keadilan dan kebenaran yang ketika proses pemilukada dan penetapan hasil pemilukada tercederai akibat tindakan kejahatan secara terstruktur, sistematis dan masif. Menurut Penulis seharusnya kaidah tersebut tunduk pada dikte hak atas persamaan di hadapan hukum dan hak atas upaya hukum yang efektif. \nThe right to equality before the law and the right to effective remedies are constitutional rights on which the law is based. Both of these rights require that everyone who wants to fight for justice and truth must be facilitated and must not be limited by law. Article 158 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of Law No. 10 of 2016 contain the principle of percentage difference in votes as a condition to be eligible to submit disputes Constitional Court of the Republic of Indonesiaon the results of the election of governor, regent, and major (local election). The principle on the provisions basically hamper the applicants whose rights are violated by structured, systematic and massive acts during the process of local election to fight for justice and truth concerning on the decision of the election result. According to the author, the rule should be subject to the dictation of the right to equality before the law and the right to effective legal remedies.","PeriodicalId":332641,"journal":{"name":"Jurnal Ilmu Hukum: ALETHEA","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jurnal Ilmu Hukum: ALETHEA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24246/alethea.vol2.no1.p45-60","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Hak atas persamaan di hadapan hukum serta hak atas upaya hukum yang efektif merupakan hak konstitusional yang melandasi undang-undang. Kedua hak tersebut, menghendaki setiap orang yang ingin memperjuangkan keadilan dan kebenaran harus difasilitas dan tidak boleh dibatasi oleh undang-undang. Pasal 158 ayat (1) dan ayat (2) UU No. 10 Tahun 2016 memuat kaidah persentase selisih suara sebagai syarat untuk dapat mengajukan permohonan perselisihan hasil Pilgub, Pilbup dan Pilkot di Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia yang pada dasarnya membatasi pemohon untuk memperjuangkan keadilan dan kebenaran yang ketika proses pemilukada dan penetapan hasil pemilukada tercederai akibat tindakan kejahatan secara terstruktur, sistematis dan masif. Menurut Penulis seharusnya kaidah tersebut tunduk pada dikte hak atas persamaan di hadapan hukum dan hak atas upaya hukum yang efektif.
The right to equality before the law and the right to effective remedies are constitutional rights on which the law is based. Both of these rights require that everyone who wants to fight for justice and truth must be facilitated and must not be limited by law. Article 158 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of Law No. 10 of 2016 contain the principle of percentage difference in votes as a condition to be eligible to submit disputes Constitional Court of the Republic of Indonesiaon the results of the election of governor, regent, and major (local election). The principle on the provisions basically hamper the applicants whose rights are violated by structured, systematic and massive acts during the process of local election to fight for justice and truth concerning on the decision of the election result. According to the author, the rule should be subject to the dictation of the right to equality before the law and the right to effective legal remedies.