Welcoming the simultaneous regional head election in 2020, it is expected to be an entry point in building a higher quality democracy in Indonesia. Initially, this year's election should be held on September 23. However, this plan must be constrained when the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak occurs and spread wildly all over the world including Indonesia, and was officially declared a pandemic by World Health Organization (WHO). When the number of positive cases and deaths continues to increase, the government decided to continue holding the regional election in the midst of the pandemic. Such policy created controversy and faced several challenges, especially regarding the government's inconsistency in fulfilling the rights of its people in the time of the pandemic. This article aims to explain and analyze the contradiction in the government policies from the antinomy of law and human rights perspective. This legal research is doctrinal research conducted using a conceptual, statutory, and case approach. The data will be described in a descriptive-prescriptive manner through qualitative analysis. The results of the analysis show that there are some contradictions between policies regarding physical distancing (both in the Large-Scale Social Restrictions (PSBB) and Health Protocol regulations) and the policy for holding Regional Head Elections during the pandemic. In essence, this contradiction is the antinomy between the aspects of public health and political rights. Antinomies occur when the government seeks to fulfill and guarantee political rights as well as public rights to health at the same time during a pandemic, which actually leads to mutual negation between these rights.

This study aims to understand custom as a key concept and siri’ as the core concept of Ugi-Mangkasara Culture based on a legal anthropological perspective. This study uses a normative approach that focuses on tracing the history of customary law related to the object of the problem. The object of study in this research is documents and manuscripts about Ugi-Mangkasara culture. The analysis used is a qualitative analysis based on the perspective of legal anthropology, so that the object of study can be interpreted and described in a narrative form. The study results show that custom as a key concept and siri’ as the core concept of Ugi-Mangkasara culture is a product of the culture of the Ugi-Mangkasara human child, which is full of values from various dimensions as the identity of the Ugi-Mangkasara human child. For Ugi-Mangkasara human children, respecting customs is a social obligation of the culture owner. Enforcing siri’ is respect for self-respect and human dignity. The values contained in the Ugi-Mangkasara culture can be used as a spirit for human children who own the culture in particular and in general for Indonesian children as part of the Ugi-Mangkasara tribe.

This study aims to examine and analyze the dichotomy between doctrinal and non-doctrinal approaches in the study of legal science. This research uses normative research methods. The collection of legal materials is done by using literature study techniques. The legal material obtained in this study was then analyzed qualitatively with a comparative approach to present conclusions and answer the research objectives. The results show that the dichotomy of approach in the study of legal science is a scientific dynamic in line with social changes in the community. The doctrinal approach is a normative legal study that always focuses on norms that are none other than the character of legal science itself. In contrast, the non-doctrinal approach is an empirical legal study that crosses other scientific disciplines and does not ignore legal norms as the character of legal science. In addition, the doctrinal approach determines substantially what is allowed and what is not (das sollen). At the same time, the non-doctrinal approach corrects legal behavior as nothing but a judiciary that creates justice, certainty, and utility in the empirical realm (das sein). Therefore, it is recommended for legal academics to have progressive legal thought construction. In addition, the government must ensure every legal academic’s competence when making academic manuscripts of Laws and Regulations Draft. In this case, the rule of law must achieve social justice for Indonesia’s people.

This study aims to examine and analyze the independence and accountability of the Constitutional Court in the constitutional system in Indonesia. This study uses a normative juridical method with a statute approach. The collection of primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials is carried out using literature study techniques. The collected legal material is analyzed using qualitative data analysis methods to describe the problem and answer study purposes. The results show that the Constitutional Court acts as the interpreter and guardian of the constitution. In addition, the Constitutional Court also acts as a guardian of human rights, citizens’ constitutional rights, and democracy. Furthermore, independence and accountability in a judicial process are like two sides of a coin. These cannot be separated because the two principles complement each other. Although the Constitutional Court has implemented duties and functions based on the principle of accountability. However, the independence of the Constitutional Court as the executor of Judicial Power has finally been lost. The Constitutional Court is now a judicial institution whose position is limited to sub-ordination from the other spheres of State Power which proposes Judges to fill in the Constitutional Court. Therefore, it is recommended that Constitutional Judges maintain their independence even though their positions result from proposals by other spheres of State Power. It is also recommended that the President and the House of Representatives uphold the mechanism of checks and balances between spheres of state power based on democratic principles. In this case, to realize the ideals of a law-based and democratic-based state for the sake of a more recognized national and state life.

This study aims to determine the juridical fundamentals and analyze the constitutionality of the provisions of the Presidential Threshold against the 1945 Constitution. The type of research used is normative or doctrinal legal research using a comparative law approach. The method of analysis in this study is to use qualitative analysis. The study results indicate that the Presidential Threshold mechanism in Indonesia has had juridical fundamentals from 2004 until now. In this case, it includes Article 6A section (2) and section (5) of the 1945 Constitution, Article 5 section (4) and Article 101 of Law No. 23 of 2003, Article 9 of Law No. 42 of 2008, to Article 222 of Law No. 7 of 2017. However, Article 222 of Law No. 7 of 2017 is a closed legal policy and not an open legal policy. Therefore, the Presidential Threshold mechanism regulated in Articles of Law up to Article 222 of Law no. 7 of 2017 can be judged unconstitutional or contrary to the 1945 Constitution. Based on this conclusion, it is suggested that the Constitutional Court consider the juridical language of Article 6A section (5) of the 1945 Constitution. In this case, Law No. 7 of 2017 does not contradict the 1945 Constitution. In addition, it is also recommended for Legislators to make amendments to Law No. 7 of 2017. Furthermore, it is hoped that Legislators will consider increasing the Parliamentary Threshold as an effort to strengthen the presidential system in Indonesia.