<![CDATA[Munculnya 2 (dua) keputusan lembaga peradilan di atas terhadap pasal yang sama tentunya menjadikan penerapan Pasal 182 huruf l Undang-Undang No. 7 Tahun 2017 Tentang Pemilihan Umum terkait syarat seseorang untuk melakukan pendaftaran bakal calon DPD berbeda dan kecenderungannya terjadi kontradiktif. Oleh karenanya, perlu dilihat maksud dan tujuan masing-masing putusan lembaga peradilan tersebut. Oleh karena itu, perlu dikaji pengaruh Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 30/PUU-XVI/2018 dan Putusan Mahkamah Agung No. 65P/HUM/2018 terhadap syarat pencalonan anggota DPD RI di Indonesia. Berdasarkan hasil penelitian, pengaruh Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 30/PUU-XVI/2018 terhadap proses rekrutmen bakal calon DPD ialah dimana persyaratan bakal calon DPD bertambah dimana pengurus (fungsionaris) partai politik tidak dibenarkan mencalonkan diri sebagai bakal calon DPD namun dikarenakan keberlakuannya tidak berlaku surut maka putusan tersebut dan aturan yang mengimplementasikan putusan tersebut tidak berlaku bagi para bakal calon yang pendaftarannya tanggal 26 Maret sampai 11 Juli 2018 dan Pengumuman/Pemberitahuan Hasil Verifikasi tanggal 19 Juli 2018. Artinya, putusan atau aturan tidak boleh berlaku surut dimana hal tersebut juga sesuai dengan putusan Mahkamah Agung No. 65P/HUM/2018. Kata kunci: Dewan Perwakilan Daerah, Mahkamah Agung, Mahkamah Konstitusi. Abstract The emergence of the 2 (two) decisions of the judiciary above on the same article certainly makes the application of Article 182 letter l of Law no. 7 of 2017 concerning General Elections regarding the requirements for someone to register for DPD candidates are different and tend to be contradictory. Therefore, it is necessary to look at the intent and purpose of each of these judicial decisions. Therefore, it is necessary to study the effect of the Constitutional Court Decision No. 30/PUU-XVI/2018 and Supreme Court Decision No. 65P/HUM/2018 on the requirements for the nomination of DPD RI members in Indonesia. Based on the results of the study, the effect of the Constitutional Court Decision No. 30/PUU-XVI/2018 regarding the recruitment process for DPD candidates is where the requirements for DPD candidates are increased where political party administrators (functionaries) are not allowed to nominate themselves as DPD candidates, but due to the fact that it does not apply retroactively, the decision and the rules that implement the decision does not apply to prospective candidates whose registration is from March 26 to July 11 2018 and the Announcement/Notification of Verification Results dated July 19, 2018. This means that decisions or rules may not apply retroactively where this is also in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court no. 65P/HUM/2018. Keywords: Constitutional Court, Regional Representative Council, Supreme Court.]]>
