Binding Legal Force of Supreme Court Decision over General Election Commission

Madaskolay Viktoris Dahoklory, Fifiana Wisnaeni
{"title":"Binding Legal Force of Supreme Court Decision over General Election Commission","authors":"Madaskolay Viktoris Dahoklory, Fifiana Wisnaeni","doi":"10.14710/LR.V16I1.30305","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Election Commission Regulation Number 26 Year 2018 established by the General Election Commission as a Follow-up to the Constitutional Court Decision Number 30 / PUU-XVI / 2018 which basically prohibits candidates for Regional Representative Council who are concurrently acting as administrators of political parties but the General Election Commission's rules are canceled by the Supreme Court based on its decision Number 65 / P / HUM / 2018. The purpose of this study is to analyze and find out whether the Supreme Court's Decision has binding legal force over the General Election Commission. The research method used is juridical-normative and qualitative analysis. The research results show that the Supreme Court Decision which nullifies legal norms in the General Election Commission Regulation still has binding legal force because in principle every judge's decision must be considered valid according to the law until there is equipment (res judicata pro veritate habetur), as well as the juridical decision of the Supreme Court immediately published in the State news, with the enactment of the Supreme Court's Decision it would naturally become the basis for the validity of the a quo Decision. The decision issued by the Supreme Court indirectly gave birth to a legal obligation for the General Election Commission, for that the General Election Commission must carry it out properly. Therefore, the Election Supervisory Body needs to oversee the election commission in carrying out the mandate of the decision.","PeriodicalId":33353,"journal":{"name":"Law Reform Jurnal Pembaharuan Hukum","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law Reform Jurnal Pembaharuan Hukum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14710/LR.V16I1.30305","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Election Commission Regulation Number 26 Year 2018 established by the General Election Commission as a Follow-up to the Constitutional Court Decision Number 30 / PUU-XVI / 2018 which basically prohibits candidates for Regional Representative Council who are concurrently acting as administrators of political parties but the General Election Commission's rules are canceled by the Supreme Court based on its decision Number 65 / P / HUM / 2018. The purpose of this study is to analyze and find out whether the Supreme Court's Decision has binding legal force over the General Election Commission. The research method used is juridical-normative and qualitative analysis. The research results show that the Supreme Court Decision which nullifies legal norms in the General Election Commission Regulation still has binding legal force because in principle every judge's decision must be considered valid according to the law until there is equipment (res judicata pro veritate habetur), as well as the juridical decision of the Supreme Court immediately published in the State news, with the enactment of the Supreme Court's Decision it would naturally become the basis for the validity of the a quo Decision. The decision issued by the Supreme Court indirectly gave birth to a legal obligation for the General Election Commission, for that the General Election Commission must carry it out properly. Therefore, the Election Supervisory Body needs to oversee the election commission in carrying out the mandate of the decision.
大法院对选举委员会判决的法律约束力
根据宪法法院第30 / PUU-XVI / 2018号判决,选举管理委员会制定了《2018年第26号选举管理委员会条例》,该条例基本上禁止地区代表委员会候选人同时担任政党行政人员,但大法院根据第65 / P / HUM / 2018号判决取消了选举管理委员会的规定。本研究的目的是分析并找出大法院的判决是否对选举管理委员会具有法律约束力。本文采用的研究方法是司法规范和定性分析。研究结果表明,废除《选举管理委员会条例》中法律规范的大法院判决仍然具有法律约束力,因为在原则上,法官的每一项判决都必须依法有效,直到有设备(res judicata pro veritate haber),以及大法院的司法判决立即在国家新闻中公布。随着最高法院判决的颁布,它自然会成为维持现状判决有效性的基础。大法院的判决间接地赋予了选举管理委员会一项法律义务,即选举管理委员会必须正确执行。因此,选举监督委员会有必要监督选举管理委员会执行决定的任务。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信