نبذة مختصرة : The utilization of educational places is prohibited as a campaign implementation. In the application submitted by the Petitioner in Constitutional Court Decision Number 65/PUU-XXI/2023 explained that the Explanation of Article 280 paragraph (1) letter h, based on reasonable reasoning, will certainly result in constitutional losses to the Plaintiffs as voters and/or as candidates for DKI Jakarta Provincial DPRD members, namely the occurrence of legal uncertainty in the prohibition of campaigns using government facilities, places of worship, and places of education. The legal uncertainty occurs because of the contradiction between the Explanation of the Article and its subject matter (contradictio in terminis). The existence of contradictio in terminis can be seen where Article 280 paragraph (1) letter h has expressly prohibited without exception and without conditions campaigns using government facilities, places of worship and places of education, but in its Explanation it actually excludes it with the condition that it is invited by the person in charge and without campaign attributes The existence of 2 (two) provisions that regulate differently (although the Explanation of the Article is not a norm but contains the formulation of norms) has resulted in legal norms becoming uncertain. The research used in this study is a type of library research based on normative research. By examining legal materials contained in various sources such as laws and regulations, court decisions, books, journals, and other articles, it is hoped that it can produce concepts and ideas related to the prohibitions in the campaign based on the perspective of democratic elections. So that the sources of normative research come from literature data, as mentioned earlier.
Processing Request
No Comments.