Suchergebnisse

Introduction to The Problem: One of the most important functions of political parties in a representative democracy is to recruit or select candidates for public officials. One of which is the selection of legislative candidates. Through this function, political parties will determine whether a person has the quality and capacity to be a member of representative and carry out his role well. Article 241 of Law Number 7 of 2017 concerning General Elections mandates that political parties in selecting candidates must be democratically and openly. But, the criteria of democratic selection is not rigidly regulated because they are fully submitted to be regulated in the internal regulations of political parties.Purpose/Objective Study: This article aims to analyze the urgency of the process of selecting legislative prospective candidate democratically and to find several parameters for the democratic selection of legislative prospective candidate.Design/Methodology/Approach: This is a normative legal research. The research sources consist of primary law and secondary law. It will also use non-legal material sources. Data collection is carried out through literature study.Findings: The results of the research are: First, the urgency of the selection of candidates to be democratically because this mechanism promises some benefits for the societies, political parties, and the quality of democracy in general, i.e: The democratic process of selecting candidates is directly proportional to the satisfaction of the wider community towards the democratic system itself; and tending to produce competent and desired candidates by the public, as well as adopting more responsive policies. Second, the parameters or indicators that can be used as guidelines to determine the democratic selection of candidates will consist of 4 (four) indicators, that are: (1) Candidacy; (2) Selectorates; (3) The level of centralization/ decentralization of selection; and (4) How are candidates nominated?Paper Type: Research Article

The constitutional court through its decision No. 42 / PUU-XIII / 2015 states that all ex-convicts may run in elections as long as their political rights are not revoked by the court. They are only required to honestly and openly announce to the public about their convict status. according to the Court, the limitation and even revocation of the political rights of ex-convicts must not be carried out by lawmakers through legislation instruments but must be with a court decision as regulated in Article 35 paragraph (1) number 3 of the Criminal Code. This decision is not entirely correct for two reasons. First, Indonesia as a country that adheres to a continental European legal system (civil law system), the law has a higher position as a source of law (primary sources of law). Whereas the court's decision only as one of the secondary sources of law. Second, the conflict between the Election Law and the Criminal Code should be resolved according to the lex specialis derogat legi generalist principle. Thus, the prohibition for ex-convicts to run for the election as regulated in the Election Law should be interpreted as a specialist regulation so that it can override the provisions contained in the Criminal Code.

AbstrakSecara historis, undang-undang di bidang pemilu legislatif (DPR, DPD, dan DPRD) dan pemilu eksekutif (Presiden dan wakil Presiden, Kepala Daerah dan Wakil Kepala Daerah) pernah mengatur tentang larangan bagi mantan narapidana yang pernah dijatuhi pidana penjara berdasarkan putusan pengadilan yang telah memperoleh kekuatan hukum tetap karena melakukan tindak pidana yang diancam dengan pidana penjara paling lama 5 (lima) tahun atau lebih, mencalonkankan diri dalam Pemilihan umum. Namun sejak adanya Putusan Mahkamah KonstitusiNomor 42/PUU-XIII/2015, ketentuan tersebut dinyatakan bertentangan dengan UUD 1945 secara bersyarat (conditionally unconstitusional) sepanjang tidak dimaknai dikecualikan bagi mantan terpidana yang secara terbuka dan jujur mengemukakan kepada publik bahwa yang bersangkutan adalah mantan terpidana. Putusan MK ini lalu kemudian ditindaklanjuti dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 7 Tahun 2017 tentang Pemilu. Namun demikian, sekalipun sudah ada putusan MK yang membolehkan mantan narapidana mencalonkan diri dalam pemilu dengan syarat-syarat tertentu, tidak menyebabkan surutnya keinginan publik untuk tetap melarang mantan napi ikut kontestasi pemilu. Aspirasi inilah yang kemudian ditindaklanjuti oleh KPU dengan mengeluarkan Peraturan Komisi Pemilihan Umum (PKPU) Nomor 20 Tahun 2018 tentang Pencalonan Anggota DPR, DPRD Provinsi, Kabupaten dan Kota dan PKPU Nomor 14 Tahun 2018 tentang Pencalonan Anggota DPD. Pada intinya, kedua PKPU ini melarangmantan terpidana bandar narkoba, kejahatan seksual terhadap anak, atau korupsi mencalonkan diri dalam pemilu 2019. Walaupun, pada akhirnya PKPU tersebut dibatalkan oleh Mahkamah Agung (MA) karena dianggap bertentangan dengan peraturan perundang-undangan yang lebih tinggi. Pertanyaan besarnya adalah, apa sebenarnya yang melatarbelakangi pembentuk UU melarang mantan napi ikut berkontestasi dalam pemilu? Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa aspek filosofis yang melartarbelakangi munculnya ketentuan larangan tersebut adalah adanya keinginan agar orang-orang yang akan dipilih adalah orang yang berkompeten, berkualitas dan mempunyai moral yang baik sehingga pemilu diharapkan mampu menjaring pemimpin-pemimpin yang baik dan mempunyai integritas kepemimpinan yang tinggi, memiliki integritas dan kapabilitas moral yang memadai, bersih, berwibawa, dan jujur sehingga mendapatkan kepercayaan dari masyarakat, dan pada gilirannya dapat menciptakan stabilitas kepemimpinan. Kata Kunci: Politik Hukum, Hak Politik, dan Mantan Narapidana.

Di antara sekian banyak argumentasi tentang pentingnya sebuah konstitusi untuk diamandemen adalah karena ia merupakan produk pemikiran dari manusia, makhluk yang bukan hanya memiliki banyak keterbatasan, tetapi juga penuh potensi berbuat salah. Dengan demikian, upaya untuk sensakralkan konstitusi sehingga menutup peluang perubahan, harus ditolak. Namun demikian, karena posisinya yang unik yaitu menjadi hukum tertinggi dalam sebuah negara, tidak boleh juga kemudian upaya untuk mereformasi konstitusi dilakukan secara serampangan tanpa adanya tujuan yang jelas dan persiapan yang matang. Sebab kesalahan dalam mendesain konstitusi akan berpengaruh terhadap baik buruknya tatanan kenegaraan. Artikel ini mengungkapkan bahwa secara faktual, sudah waktunya UUD 1945 untuk dilakukan amandemen ulang karena di dalamnya masih mengandung banyak kekurangan dan kelemahan. Akan tetapi, saat ini bukan merupakan momentum yang tepat untuk melakukan amandemen karena tingginya konflik kepentingan (conflict of interest) antar elit kekuasaan yang hal tersebut dikhawatirkan akan mempengaruhi kwalitas hasil amandemen.Kata Kunci: Amandemen, Konstitusi, dan Konsolidasi Demokrasi.

This paper will analyze the arrangements and practices for the election of chairperson (president) of the Prosperous Justice Party as one of the party's instruments in implementing intra-party democracy. There are two main issues to be discussed, namely: (i) has the regulation of the election of the president of the Prosperous Justice Party reflected democratic arrangements? (ii) has the democratic election been conducted in the Presidential Election for the Prosperous Justice Party? To answer this question, researchers examine all the laws and regulations relating to the legal issue in question. The laws and regulations referred to fall into two categories, namely primary and secondary legal materials. The results showed that both in terms of formulation of rules and practice, the election of the president of the Prosperous Justice Party is still far from democratic values. It is caused by the following five factors: (1) the right of nomination is not open to all party members but is nominated by the chairman of the Advisory Council, (2) the right to vote does not involve broad party elements but only becomes the authority of the members of the Advisory Council, (3) presidential candidates parties are not elected through a voting mechanism, but by appointment (acclamation), (4) the nature of the election is not competitive because it is always only followed by a single candidate, and (5) there is a limitation of the term of office of five years, but there is no limit on how many times. It has the potential for a party presidential position to be held by one person for an unlimited period.

The presence of a political party in the modern constitutional system is one of the necessity as one of the institutions authorized to fill the political position/power. The filling of the department/Power referred to one must be done through the mechanism of direct selection by the people is to fill the legislative office (DPR, DPD and DPRD) and executives (Presidents and regional heads). Thus, the political parties and the elections are two things that must be mandatory in a democratic state. A problem that always arise in the election is money politic. The majority of the advanced candidates run for the head of the political parties – allegedly strong – always involve material/money to win it. The practice of money politic in the Indonesian system of participation and election is believed to be one of the reasons for the quality and performance of democratic institutions in Indonesia, especially the political parties and parliaments. This kind of thing needs to be identified on what is the factor that causes the political money (money politics) and the necessity of the role of the ideal law (legislation) in providing solutions in reducing or even (when possible) preventing the occurrence of political money (money politics). The type of research used is juridical normative legal research, which is legal research conducted by examining the library material. There are 3 (three) reasons for the emergence of political practice money (money politics) in the elections, namely: (i) Patron-client, poverty factor, low Party-ID. The role that can be taken by the law in preventing the political practice of money is (i) required the policy to impose criminal sanctions only for money politic. (ii) Change the legislative election system from a proportional system to the district system.

The requirement of presidential threshold (PT) as regulated in article 222 Act No. 7 Year 2017 about General Election is no longer urgent to be applied in simultaneous general election. The requirement violates against the principles of justice general elections since it ellipse the rights of new political parties to propose candidates of president and vice president. On the other hand, viewing from the presidential system itself, PT requirement in the article 222 Act of General Election has an impairment and needs to reconstruct. This study emphasizes on two issues. First, the urgency to reconstruct political law of PT from the perspectives of presidential system and the simplification of political parties. Second, the concept of PT in the next simultaneous general election. This study results on, first, that in a presidential system, PT is considered as a requirement for the chosen and not a requirement for nominating president and vice president. In presidential systems, the presidential elections do not depend on the results of the legislative elections. Therefore, making the results of the legislative election as a condition for nominating the president and vice president is a violation of the presidential system. Second, PT provisions in terms of nomination requirements should no longer be needed because the purpose of implementing PT is to present a simplification party system and to garner majority support from the parliament against the elected president and vice president will be automatically implemented from the results of simultaneous general elections.