REKONSTRUKSI PENYELESAIAN PELANGGARAN ADMINISTRASI PEMILIHAN KEPALA DAERAH MENURUT ASPEK KEPASTIAN HUKUM

The emergence of violations in the implementation of regional elections is seen as an important element that must be handled or resolved based on justice, legal certainty and legal benefits. For example, there is a dualism of authority in the Regional Election Law which can be seen from the authority in resolving administrative violations where it is stated that Bawaslu is given the authority to make "recommendations" to the KPU based on the results of its study in resolving administrative violations. After the KPU receives recommendations from Bawaslu according to its level, the KPU is "still" given the authority by the Pilkada Law to "examine and decide" on violations of Pilkada administration. The existence of the 2 mechanisms and procedures above (Bawaslu Review and KPU Legal Review) can lead to different results from the two and a repetition of the same thing. If we look closely, this legal problem is a problem starting from the "upstream" namely in articles 139 and 140 of the Regional Election Law where two institutions (Bawaslu and KPU) are given almost the same authority, giving rise to vague norms and even conflicting norms which causes legal uncertainty in their implementation. To ensure legal certainty in resolving regional election administrative violations, it is necessary to make efforts to present legal norms/provisions (reconstruction of regulations) that provide legal certainty in resolving violations.