EVALUATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION SUPERVISORY AGENCY (BAWASLU)

Law

This article is the result of the author's research on the legal substance of the Regency/ The General Election Supervisory Agency (BAWASLU) in handling and assessing the presence or absence of election violations or findings/reports. In the process of inspection, research, study to produce recommendations, giving authority to Regency/Municipal Bawaslu to ensure formal and material truth, therefore the recommendations as referred to in Article 139 of Law Number 1 of 2015, with a technical handling mechanism in Bawaslu regulation Number 14 of 2017 are binding, must be followed up by the Regency/City General Elections Commission (KPU). Regency/City KPU based on Article 140 of Law Number 1 of 2015 uses operational instruments namely KPU Regulation (PKPU) Number 13 of 2014 in conjunction with PKPU Number 25 of 2013, which requires KPU to observe, review, and make decisions as a follow-up to recommendations Regency/City Bawaslu. The purpose of this study was to find out the legal problems recommended by the Regency/City Bawaslu in the process of handling election violations. The methodology used is normative juridical with a law and library approach. As a result of the findings and conclusions, the process of material examination by the City Regency KPU on Regency/City Bawaslu recommendations straddles the principle of efficiency in the implementation of elections and does not show the Proportionality Principle in the form of institutional alignment in obtaining authority, where the recommendation authority by City Regency Bawaslu is obtained from the law. while the authority of Regency/Municipal KPU is obtained from PKPU, besides this shows that Regency/Municipal KPU can supervise the results of Regency/City Bawaslu recommendations which when the two study results contradict it will have an impact on public distrust.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.