The holding of the will enter a new regime. It will be divided into national and local regimes. This regime change will certainly have implications for various elements of the holding of elections, including the process of resolving disputes over results. Based on the law, dispute resolution is tried by the Constitutional Court for disputes over the results of general elections that categorize into the regime and by the Special Judiciary Committee for regional head elections. This must be changed immediately because the general and the regional head's election regime are not known or replaced by national and local election regimes. Therefore, it is necessary to look for the concept of resolving disputes over the results of new elections. This study aims to find various options for resolving disputes on the results of general elections both national and local elections. The results showed that there were four choices to choose from. Namely, (1). Dispute resolution is based on the electoral regime by making the Constitutional Court as the institution authorized to adjudicate disputes over the election results of DPR (The House of Representative), DPD (The Regional Representative Council), and the President / Vice President, while disputes on the election results of DPRD (The Regional House of Representative) members and regional heads are tried by the Special Judiciary Committee; (2). The Constitutional Court punishes all disputes over national and local election results; (3). The Special Judiciary Committee punishes all disputes over national and local results. (4). The judicial process can also be tried by the Supreme Court for National and Local Elections.
Volume 12 | Issue 6
Pages: 2110-2120
DOI: 10.5373/JARDCS/V12I6/S20201173