Analisis Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 55p/HUM/2018 Tentang Pengujian Peraturan Komisi Pemilihan Umum Nomor 20 Tahun 2018 Tentang Pencalonan Anggota DPR, DPRD Provinsi Dan DPRD Kabupaten/Kota

The Supreme Court Decision Number 55P / HUM / 2018 can be concluded that former corruption convicts can nominate themselves as candidates for DPR, Provincial DPRD and Regency / City DPRD members by ignoring the provisions of Article 4 of the General Election Commission Regulation Number 20 of 2018 concerning Nominations for Members of the DPR, Provincial DPRD and Regency / City DPRD, it shows that there is a legal dilemma regarding a rule, but according to the author of the KPU formulation the prohibition against former corruption convicts from becoming legislative candidates is relevant. Because the former convicted corruption convict will be nominated as a public official. This position will allow them to regain access to legislative, budgetary and supervisory powers. The state must also protect larger interests, namely voters and citizens. The main problem of this research is How is the Relationship between the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court in Testing the Legislation in Indonesia, and What are the Implications of Decision Number 55P / Hum / 2018 Regarding the Testing of the General Election Commission Regulation Number 20 of 2018 concerning Nominations for Members of the DPR, Provincial DPRD and DPRD Regency / City. The research method used is Normative research, which is research that intends to study the legal norms of testing statutory regulations, while the nature of this research is descriptive. The results of research and discussion are known that the relationship between the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court in the Judicial Review of Legislation in Indonesia is that it can lead to dualism in the examination of laws and regulations which results in inconsistencies in the Supreme Court Decision and the Constitutional Court Decision which can affect the institutional relationship between fellow judicial institutions but also image and prestige. Court decisions, but can also lead to legal confusion and which will undoubtedly harm the interests of the justice-seeking community, and the implications of Decision Number 55P / Hum / 2018 concerning the Testing of General Election Commission Regulation Number 20 of 2018 concerning the Nomination of Members of DPR, Provincial DPRD and Regency / City DPRD are The Supreme Court's decision implies that former convicts in corruption cases can nominate themselves as candidates with the conditions stipulated by the KPU Election Law and must make adjustments between PKPU and the Supreme Court decision by making revisions or changes to PKPU. In addition, the synchronization of norms related to limiting the political rights of a citizen must be included in the law, not regulated in statutory regulations under the PKPU in casu law and must be reviewed by taking into account the hierarchical system of legislation