Legal Pollution of Dispute Settlement Results of Regional Head SelectionRealizing the Election Justice

The implementation of direct regional head elections in the regions often raises disputes regarding the determination of the results of the vote. Efforts made by candidates who are dissatisfied with this determination are to submit a cancellation to the judicial institution. The update on the system for resolving the election results was carried out by the government to overcome this problem, namely the Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 1 of 2014. Problems discussed in this study include: how the dispute resolution mechanism was issued before the regulation, what updates are contained in the regulation how to achieve effective and fair election outcome dispute resolution. This study is a normative legal research that is descriptive in nature using a legal and analytical approach. Based on the results of the study, it can be concluded that the fundamental renewal lies with the institution authorized to handle, namely from the Constitutional Court to the High Court appointed by the Supreme Court. The author recommends that the renewal must be supported by technical regulations to ensure effectiveness and fulfill a sense of justice. Based on this research, the results show that the dynamics of the shifting of dispute resolution authority over the election results are influenced by the decision of the MK opened legally policy and the background of certain events. Namely: the problem of bribery that ensnares the judge, decisions that are considered controversial, case accumulation, and unpreparedness of institutional structure and infrastructure. Regarding the threshold requirements as a condition for receiving a dispute over a dispute over the results of a regional election, it has not yet supported the fulfillment of electoral / election justice. Because it has the potential to ignore aspects of substantive justice, mainly because it does not make the facts of the violations structured, systematic and massive (TSM) as a variable in examining cases. This neglect is not in line with one of the universally adopted principles of law and justice, which states that no one can benefit from irregularities and violations committed by himself and no one may be harmed by irregularities and violations committed by others (nullus / nemo commodum capere potes de injuria sua propria).