Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Penyelesaian Pelanggaran administrasi Pilkada dan Pemilu oleh Bawaslu dan jajaran sesuai dengan mandat UU Nomor 7 Tahun 2017 tentang Pemilu dan UU Nomor 10 Tahun 2016 tentang Pemilihan Gubernur, Bupati dan Walikota. Keduanya menggunakan mekanisme yang bebeda yaitu mekanisme penerimaan laporan, kajian dengan produk rekomendasi untuk pilkada dan mekanisme adjudikasi dalam persidangan terbuka umum dengan produk putusan untuk Pemilu. Pada praktiknya terdapat hambatan dalam penyelesaian pelanggaran administrasi pilkada yang difokuskan pada pelanggaran Pasal 71 ayat (2) ayat (3) dengan sanksi administrasi pembatalan calon karena diparitas mekanisme dan produk akhir ini. Ditemui variasi tindaklanjut yang dilakukan oleh KPU dan jajarannya ketika produk pelanggaran administrasi berupa rekomendasi meskipun baik putusan ataupun rekomendasi, UU Pemilu dan UU Pilkada sama mengatur kewajiban KPU dan jajarannya untuk melakukan tindaklanjut. Perbedaan terletak pada konteks pilkada karena setalah rekomendasi Bawaslu diberikan UU Pilkada juga memberikan kewenangan memeriksa dan memutus pelanggaran administrasi Pilkada oleh KPU dan jajarannya. Perumusan masalah dalam penelitian ini adalah bagaimanakan penanganan pelanggaran administrasi Pilkada dan Penanganan Pelanggaran administrasi Pemilu oleh Bawaslu dan bagaimanakah hambatan dalam penanganan pelanggaran administrasi Pilkada jika dibandingkan dengan penanganan pelanggaran Pemilu berdasarkan Putusan dan Rekomendasi. Penulisan tesis ini menggunakan metode penelitian hukum yuridis normatif. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa penanganan pelanggaran administrasi Pilkada dan Pemilu menggunakan mekanisme yang diatur oleh dua regulasi yang berbeda sehingga menimbulkan disparitas meskipun diselenggarakan oleh lembaga yang memiliki kewenangan yang sama sebagaimana putusan MK 48/PUU-XVII/2019. Ditemui hambatan seperti perbedaan pemahaman antara KPU dan Bawaslu, sifat dan daya ikat rekomendasi, mekanisme non adjudikasi yang tidak berimbang dengan output rekomendasi pembatalan calon, peraturan KPU yang tidak sesuai. Saran adalah perbaikan kerangka hukum dengan revisi UU Pilkada berkenaan dengan kewenangan pelanggaran administrasi menyesuaikan dengan UU Pemilu untuk pelanggaran Pasal 71 ayat (2), (3) dengan sanksi pembatalan calon dengan output putusan, mengatur hukum acara sendiri, revisi PKPU Nomor 25 Tahun 2013 dan membangun kesepahaman antar lembaga penyelenggara pemilu

---

Settlement of Election and Election administrative violations by Bawaslu and its ranks in accordance with the mandate of Law Number 7 of 2017 concerning General Elections and Law Number 10 of 2016 concerning Election of Governors, Regents and Mayors. Both of them use different mechanisms, namely the mechanism for receiving reports, studies with recommendation products for the regional elections and adjudication mechanisms in public open trials with decisions for elections. In practice, there are obstacles in resolving election administrative violations which are focused on violations of Article 71 paragraph (2) paragraph (3) with administrative sanctions for canceling candidates due to the disparity of the mechanism and the final product. There were variations of follow-up carried out by the KPU and its staff when the product of administrative violation was in the form of a recommendation, even though it was a decision or recommendation. The Election Law and the Pilkada Law both regulate the obligations of the KPU and its staff to follow up. The difference lies in the context of the election because after the Bawaslu recommendation was given the Pilkada Law also gave the authority to examine and decide on violations of the election administration by the KPU and its staff. The formulation of the problem in this research is howhandling of election administrative violations and handling of election administrative violations by Bawaslu and how are the obstacles in handling election administrative violations when compared to handling election violations based on Decisions and Recommendations. The writing of this thesis uses a normative juridical legal research method. The results of the study indicate that the handling of administrative violations of the Pilkada and General Elections uses a mechanism regulated by two different regulations, causing disparities even though they are carried out by institutions that have the same authority as the Constitutional Court's decision 48/PUU-XVII/2019. Obstacles were encountered such as differences in understanding between the KPU and Bawaslu, the nature and binding power of the recommendations, non-adjudication mechanisms that were not balanced with the output of recommendations for the cancellation of candidates, Inappropriate KPU regulations. Suggestions are improvements to the legal framework by revising the Pilkada Law with regard to the authority for administrative violations to comply with the Election Law for violations of Article 71 paragraph (2), (3) with sanctions for canceling candidates with decision outputs, regulating their own procedural law, revising PKPU Number 25 of 2013 and build understanding among election management bodies."

"Attempting political democratization, strengthening macroeconomic condition, and developing independent judiciary have been three sector paid more concerns in Indonesia. Beside, administrative reform in Indonesia is considered another sector that is so worth to perform since it plays significant role as prerequisite infrastructure in which other reform efforts are preceded as well as dealing with daily life public services. In doing so, taking administrative procedure law in other well-developed countries, such as the U.S, Germany, and the Netherland, Indonesia government are about to make draft of Government Administration Law. By using point of view as a practicioner of German public servant, this article emphasizes fundamental aspect of this effort in comparison to what has been preceded in Germany as well. That is distinguishing as well as separating administration from branch of political power, especially the executive, in order to maintain its independence and neutrality. It is what the respective legal draft is supposed to afford."

"UU No. 5 Tahun 1999 memberikan kewenangan menjatuhkan sanksi administratif kepada KPPU sebagai competition authority di Indonesia. Dalam beberapa kasus, KPPU memberikan sanksi administratif di luar dari yang terdapat dalam Undang-Undang tersebut, khususnya dalam perkara persekongkolan tender. KPPU sering menjatuhkan sanksi larangan mengikuti tender atau pelelangan kepada pelaku usaha, padahal bentuk sanksi tersebut tidak terdapat dalam Undang-Undang.Dalam putusan KPPU No. 1/KPPU-L/2013, KPPU menjatuhkan sanksi larangan mengikuti pelelangan selama dua tahun kepada ketiga pelaku usaha. Akibat permasalahan ini beberapa putusan KPPU yang memuat hukuman tersebut dibatalkan oleh Pengadilan Negeri maupun Mahkamah Agung. Padahal pelaku usaha tersebut terbukti melanggar pasal 22.

---

Competition Act No. 5 Year 1999 gives an authority for KPPU as competition authority in Indonesia to impose administrative sanction. In some cases, KPPU also imposed administrative sanction beyond those which contained in Competition Act, especially in bid rigging cases. KPPU often imposes prohibition in tendering or auctions sanction to the bidders. However, that kind of sanction is not exist in the Competition Act. In Commission’s Decision No. 1/KPPU-L/2013, KPPU imposed prohibition in auctions for two years to those three tender participants. The consequence of this problem is some of KPPU’s Decisions which contained that kind of sanction were cancelled by District Court or by

Supreme Court, although that tender participants have been proven violating the article No. 22 in Competition Act."