Kajian atas Putusan MK No. 57/PHPU.D-VI/2008 dan No. /PHPU.D-VIII/2010 Tentang Pemilukada Bengkulu Selatan
| Main Author: | Tobroni, Faiq |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article eJournal |
| Bahasa: | eng |
| Terbitan: |
[ 44 ] JURNAL KONSTITUSI
, 2012
|
| Online Access: |
http://lib.law.ugm.ac.id/ojs/index.php/jko/article/view/454 |
Daftar Isi:
- This paper will analize two decisions of Constitutional Court (MK) on the dispute of the general election of local head (pemilukada) in Bengkulu Selatan. The firsth decision is that of No. 57/PHPU.D-VI/2008 commanding the Commission of General Election (KPU) BS to carry out the polling again because it was found that there is an ilegal participant. To this decission, the problem is MK's authority is on the dispute of 236C UU 12/2008. which reads that it's authority is on the dispute of election results and not on the administrative requirements.The second decision is that of No. 100/PHPU.D-VIII/2010 commanding KPU BS to appoint the couple of RE and RM as selected winners. To this decission, the problem is article 107 pharagraph (2) UU 12/2008. which reads the couple of candidates would be appointed as winners if they had gotten 30% of total legal vote.The reason of MK for deciding these is after interpretating these articles with the progressive/extensive interpretation. This kinds is going to result in the substantive purpose. In the first case, the reason of MK is that the administrative violation has caused the violation of principle of pemilukada based on article 22 E UUD 1945. Throughn this interpretation, MK interprates article 236C UU 12/2008 progressively/extensively:ie: the authority is not only to handle the dispute of election result, but also the violation of principle of election as substantive purposes.In the second case, the reason of MK is that the MK's command for KPU BS to appoint the couple of RE and RM was based on the status of repolling organized in 30 Juli 2010. In other side, MK interprates that the requirement of appointment of winner with couple of candidates getting 30 interpretation, because this is the third one, the appoinment of winner is sufficient for considering which couple of candidates get the highest vote as the substantive purpose.