Dynamics of Handling Disputes Over the Results of Regional Head Elections at the Constitutional Court

Abstract

This study analyzes the dynamics of handling disputes over the results of the 2024/2025 Simultaneous Regional Head Election (PHPKada) at the Constitutional Court, focusing on the dialectic between procedural legal certainty and substantive justice. After the Constitutional Court Decision Number 85/PUU-XX/2022 which confirmed the Court as a permanent institution for dispute resolution, there has been a significant transformation in procedural law through judicial digitalization (e-Court) based on PMK Number 3 of 2024. This study examines the problems of the implementation of the threshold of vote difference as stipulated in Article 158 of Law Number 10 of 2016, which is often a formal barrier for justice seekers. The findings of the study show the existence of the practice of judicial activism, where the Court applies an exception to the threshold if the applicant is able to prove the evidence of Structured, Systematic, and Massive (TSM) violations cumulatively. Through the analysis of case studies on the disputes of the Serang, Boven Digoel, and Tasikmalaya Regency Elections, this study confirms the role of the Court in upholding corrective justice through disqualification sanctions and Re-Voting Orders (PSU) due to abuse of authority and defective candidate requirements. Nevertheless, this study also identifies crucial challenges related to the internal ethical crisis of constitutional judges that has the potential to degrade the legitimacy of decisions. It is concluded that the enforcement of electoral integrity does not only depend on regulatory instruments and progressive evidentiary doctrines, but also requires strict ethical supervision to ensure the independence of the judiciary.