Melola Discovery

← Melola Discovery

Akses terbuka Jurnal

Judicial Gatekeeping in Electoral Justice: The Constitutional Court’s Dismissal Procedure in Indonesian Regional Election Disputes

Journal of Law and Legal Reform · Vol. 7 No. 3 (2026) · hlm. 1667–1726

DOI
10.15294/jllr.v7i3.49871
ISSN
2715-0968, 2715-0941
Terbit
2026-07-13
Penerbit
Faculty of Law, Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia
Bahasa
eng
Lisensi
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0

Abstrak

Electoral dispute resolution has become a critical pillar for safeguarding democratic legitimacy in Indonesia, particularly as regional head elections have led to an increasing number of legal disputes. In the 2024–2025 electoral cycle alone, the Constitutional Court registered 309 lawsuits against regional election results, but only a small fraction made it past the dismissal stage. Although normatively justified as a means of ensuring efficiency under strict constitutional deadlines, the dismissal procedure has evolved into a decisive gatekeeping function whose application significantly shapes access to constitutional justice. However, concerns are growing about inconsistencies in judicial reasoning, disparities between similar cases, and the potential erosion of legal certainty, particularly evident in conflicting rulings in disputes such as Boven Digoel and Belu. This study critically examines the philosophical–juridical basis and practical implementation of the dismissal procedure in electoral adjudication in Indonesia. Drawing on doctrinal analysis and empirical examination of selected cases, this study investigates whether the mechanism fulfills its normative purpose while maintaining justice, certainty, and equality before the law. The findings reveal structural tensions between procedural efficiency and substantive justice, highlighting how the exercise of judicial discretion at the dismissal stage can both enable and limit electoral accountability. The study contributes to constitutional scholarship by reframing dismissal as a judicial gatekeeping doctrine and offering analytical criteria, such as doctrinal predictability, procedural transparency, and access optimization for assessing coherence and transparency in screening practices. Building on these criteria, the study proposes concrete measures for legal reform: standardized, publicly reasoned dismissal templates; inter-panel doctrinal harmonization guidelines; and a state-supported legal aid scheme for petitioners from resource-limited regions, offering the Constitutional Court, lawmakers, and election administrators an actionable roadmap for strengthening procedural safeguards, enhancing public trust, and promoting more consistent standards in electoral dispute resolution.

Kata kunci

Jaringan kolaborasi para penulis

40 penulis · 135 tautan kepenulisan bersama · 53 lintas organisasi · menampilkan 40 yang paling banyak terhubung

Arahkan kursor atau ketuk sebuah nama untuk menyorot rekan penulisnya. Klik dua kali untuk membuka halaman penulis.

  • University of Technology Malaysia
  • Glasgow Caledonian University
  • University of Malaya
  • Jubail Industrial College
  • University of Kuala Lumpur
  • Robert Gordon University
  • University of Exeter
  • Organisasi lain
  • Afiliasi tidak diketahui
  • Organisasi berbeda
  • Organisasi sama
  • Afiliasi tidak diketahui
  • Garis lebih tebal = lebih banyak artikel bersama · lingkaran lebih besar = lebih banyak artikel
Tampilkan sebagai tabel
Rekan penulisOrganisasiArtikel bersama
Yustina Dhian NovitaAfiliasi tidak diketahui3
Nurul Aini BaniUniversity of Technology Malaysia2
Abdullahi Abubakar Mas’udJubail Industrial College2
Mohd Nabil MuhtazaruddinUniversity of Technology Malaysia2
Aldehita Purnasanti MaulidaAfiliasi tidak diketahui2
Muhammad Adymas Hikal FikriAfiliasi tidak diketahui2
Anis WidyawatiAfiliasi tidak diketahui2
Daud Renata Candra RamadanAfiliasi tidak diketahui2
Zulfa Rena WijayantiAfiliasi tidak diketahui2
Adiba Ro'uf Danur IslamAfiliasi tidak diketahui2
Tri SulistiyonoAfiliasi tidak diketahui2
Firdaus Muhammad‐SukkiRobert Gordon University1
Siti Hawa Abu-BakarUniversity of Kuala Lumpur1
Daria FreierGlasgow Caledonian University1
Roberto Ramírez-ÍñiguezGlasgow Caledonian University1
Tapas Kumar MallickUniversity of Exeter1
Siti Hajar Mohd YasinUniversiti Teknologi MARA1
Siti Sarah Abu-BakarKing's College London1
Farrel Ardan RinaldiAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Marlina Dewi SetianiAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Indah Sri UtariAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Berlian Daliani Zora RafiAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Windiahsari WindiahsariAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Raphael Bertrand MayakaAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Martitah MartitahAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Tegar Islami PutraAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Niken SeptianiAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Rahmawati Mohd YusoffAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Arif HidayatAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Ristina YudhantiAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Rizqan NaelufarAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Dina RistantiAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Gabriel Aditya Permana SAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Deva Sakti SusmanaAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Halim RahmansahAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Yos Johan UtamaAfiliasi tidak diketahui1

Afiliasi berasal dari OpenAlex; metadata OAI-PMH jurnal tidak memuatnya. Penulis tanpa ID OpenAlex dicocokkan berdasarkan nama, sehingga dua orang bisa tergabung atau satu orang bisa terpisah.

Sumber metadata: OAI-PMH (metadata jurnal) https://journal.unnes.ac.id/journals/jllr/oai, pertama di-harvest 6 Nov 2026, terakhir terlihat 8 Nov 2026.
Metadata asli (oai_dc)
<oai_dc:dc xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/  http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
	<dc:title xml:lang="en">Judicial Gatekeeping in Electoral Justice: The Constitutional Court’s Dismissal Procedure in Indonesian Regional Election Disputes</dc:title>
	<dc:creator xml:lang="en">Asa, Simplexius</dc:creator>
	<dc:creator xml:lang="en">Seran, Marlyani Anita</dc:creator>
	<dc:creator xml:lang="en">Gusthomi, Moh. Imam</dc:creator>
	<dc:creator xml:lang="en">Munir, Abu Bakar</dc:creator>
	<dc:subject xml:lang="en">Electoral Justice</dc:subject>
	<dc:subject xml:lang="en">Dismissal Procedure</dc:subject>
	<dc:subject xml:lang="en">Constitutional Adjudication</dc:subject>
	<dc:subject xml:lang="en">Judicial Discretion</dc:subject>
	<dc:subject xml:lang="en">Legal Certainty</dc:subject>
	<dc:description xml:lang="en">Electoral dispute resolution has become a critical pillar for safeguarding democratic legitimacy in Indonesia, particularly as regional head elections have led to an increasing number of legal disputes. In the 2024–2025 electoral cycle alone, the Constitutional Court registered 309 lawsuits against regional election results, but only a small fraction made it past the dismissal stage. Although normatively justified as a means of ensuring efficiency under strict constitutional deadlines, the dismissal procedure has evolved into a decisive gatekeeping function whose application significantly shapes access to constitutional justice. However, concerns are growing about inconsistencies in judicial reasoning, disparities between similar cases, and the potential erosion of legal certainty, particularly evident in conflicting rulings in disputes such as Boven Digoel and Belu. This study critically examines the philosophical–juridical basis and practical implementation of the dismissal procedure in electoral adjudication in Indonesia. Drawing on doctrinal analysis and empirical examination of selected cases, this study investigates whether the mechanism fulfills its normative purpose while maintaining justice, certainty, and equality before the law. The findings reveal structural tensions between procedural efficiency and substantive justice, highlighting how the exercise of judicial discretion at the dismissal stage can both enable and limit electoral accountability. The study contributes to constitutional scholarship by reframing dismissal as a judicial gatekeeping doctrine and offering analytical criteria, such as doctrinal predictability, procedural transparency, and access optimization for assessing coherence and transparency in screening practices. Building on these criteria, the study proposes concrete measures for legal reform: standardized, publicly reasoned dismissal templates; inter-panel doctrinal harmonization guidelines; and a state-supported legal aid scheme for petitioners from resource-limited regions, offering the Constitutional Court, lawmakers, and election administrators an actionable roadmap for strengthening procedural safeguards, enhancing public trust, and promoting more consistent standards in electoral dispute resolution.</dc:description>
	<dc:publisher xml:lang="en">Faculty of Law, Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia</dc:publisher>
	<dc:date>2026-07-13</dc:date>
	<dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/article</dc:type>
	<dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion</dc:type>
	<dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
	<dc:identifier>https://journal.unnes.ac.id/journals/jllr/article/view/49871</dc:identifier>
	<dc:identifier>10.15294/jllr.v7i3.49871</dc:identifier>
	<dc:source xml:lang="en">Journal of Law and Legal Reform; Vol. 7 No. 3 (2026): July, 2026; 1667-1726</dc:source>
	<dc:source>2715-0968</dc:source>
	<dc:source>2715-0941</dc:source>
	<dc:source>10.15294/jllr.v7i3</dc:source>
	<dc:language>eng</dc:language>
	<dc:relation>https://journal.unnes.ac.id/journals/jllr/article/view/49871/11258</dc:relation>
	<dc:rights xml:lang="en">Copyright (c) 2026 Simplexius Asa, Marlyani Anita Seran, Moh. Imam Gusthomi, Abu Bakar Munir (Author)</dc:rights>
	<dc:rights xml:lang="en">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0</dc:rights>
</oai_dc:dc>