After The Constitutional Court's Decision, The KPU Cannot Annul Bawaslu's Decision Regarding The Violation Of The Regional Head Election Administration

Illustration - Election Supervisory Body Building (Bawaslu). (Photo: Doc. ANTARA)

JAKARTA Member of the General Election Supervisory Body (Bawaslu), Puadi revealed that the Constitutional Court's Decision (MK) Number 104/PUU-XXIII/2025 further strengthens Bawaslu's position as an institution authorized to handle election administrative violations.

"This decision confirms the position of Bawaslu as an institution that has the constitutive authority to handle election administrative violations. Because, the phrase Bawaslu recommendation in Article 139 of the Pilkada Law must be interpreted as a decision," he said, Sunday, August 3, 2025.

He explained that the Constitutional Court's decision made clear the status of handling cases of administrative violations of the Pilkada through the Bawaslu trial which could no longer be annulled by the General Elections Commission (KPU).

Thus, the results of the handling and trial of Bawaslu related to administrative violations of the Pilkada must be followed up by the KPU without being interpreted again.

However, Puadi ensured that the Constitutional Court's Decision 104/2025 could not be applied to the cases of the 2024 Simultaneous Regional Head Elections. This decision does not apply retroactively, so it does not change the results or the Pilkada process that has been running," he added.

Previously, the Constitutional Court strengthened Bawaslu's authority in handling election administration violations.

In the decision Number 104/PUU-XXIII/2025, the Constitutional Court changed the phrase Article 140 paragraph (1) of the Pilkada Law because it was considered contrary to the 1945 Constitution and did not have conditionally binding legal force.

"As long as it doesn't mean the phrase 'check and decide' it becomes a follow-up and the word recommendation becomes a decision," said the Chairman of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia, Suhartoyo,

In the point of consideration, Constitutional Justice Ridwan Mansyur said there was an inconsistency in the arrangement for handling election administrative violations by Bawaslu with the rules of the Election Law for the presidential and legislative elections.

This decision came after there was a request for testing Article 139 paragraph (1), paragraph (2), and paragraph (3), as well as Article 140 paragraph (1) of the Pilkada Law which was deemed contrary to Article 22E paragraph (1) and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.

The petitioners requested that the design of patterns for handling administrative violations in the Pilkada be equated with elections.

The reason is, in handling administrative violations, both of them have quite extreme differences.

In violations of election administration, cases were examined and decided by Bawaslu, Bawaslu Province, and Bawaslu Regency/City.

The decision must be followed up by the KPU, Provincial KPU and Regency/City KPU. Regarding this decision, there are no efforts to re-examine and decide, so that the KPU, Provincial KPU and Regency/City KPU must follow up on the decision.

Meanwhile, in the pattern of handling violations of the Pilkada administration, it is carried out by making recommendations on the results of the Provincial Bawaslu and/or Regency/City Bawaslu studies.

Then regarding these recommendations, the Provincial KPU and/or Regency/City KPU are required to follow up but in the form of checking and deciding, namely in the form of a review as PKPU Number 15 of 2024.

"With these differences, it causes an error in interpreting the authority of each election organizing institution. In fact, the legal designs of the General Election, KPU and Bawaslu (including the Honorary Council of Election Organizers/DKPP) in an institutional structure are both election organizers," said Ridwan.

Thus, Ridwan emphasized that the Constitutional Court's decision in the case ensured that the suitability of the handling of cases of administrative violations of the Pilkada and Elections was the same, there was no difference because it was binding and mandatory for the KPU to carry out.

"So the violation of the Pilkada administration handled by Bawaslu must have the same binding legal force. The KPU is obliged to follow up on the results of the supervision carried out by Bawaslu, so there is no need to review it," said Ridwan.