ANALISIS YURIDIS PUTUSAN BAWASLU KOTA MALANG NOMOR: 003/LP/ADM.PL/BWSL.KOTA/16.06/III/2024 DALAM PENYELESAIAN PELANGGARAN ADMINISTRATIF PEMILU DITINJAU DARI ASPEK KEADILAN

The Decision of Bawaslu Kota Malang Number: 003/ LP/ ADM.PL/ BWSL.KOTA/ 16.06/ III/ 2024 in resolving administrative violations of the General Election raises a substantial legal issue. There exists a clear disparity between the proven violation—concerning procedures, mechanisms, or processes within the election stages—and the type of sanction imposed by Bawaslu Kota Malang, which was limited to a written warning without any corrective action. Therefore, this study focuses on a juridical analysis of the panel's legal reasoning and the operative verdict, assessing its alignment with principles of justice based on Mackenzie’s theory of judicial reasoning and John Rawls’s theory of justice. The research method used is normative juridical, applying statutory, case, and conceptual approaches. The findings reveal that both the reasoning and the decision are merely declarative, lacking the necessary corrective measures and failing to fully reflect the fulfillment of the constitutional rights of election participants. This reflects a lack of institutional courage in upholding substantive justice. The analysis based on Mackenzie and Rawls indicates that the decision remains procedural and formalistic. Accordingly, it is necessary to reformulate more equitable parameters for administrative sanctions that extend to the protection of the constitutional rights of the aggrieved parties and to strengthen Bawaslu’s corrective authority as part of the electoral justice system.