DUALISME AKUNTABILITAS PUTUSAN PENYELENGGARA PEMILU ANTARA DKPP DAN PTUNNIM.: 23203012001George Soros Setiawan DayauthorThis study discusses the dualism of accountability for election organizer decisions between the DKPP and the PTUN. The problem stems from PTUN Decision No. 82/G/2020/PTUN.JKT, which ordered the annulment of Presidential Decree No. 34/P. 2020, which automatically invalidated DKPP ethical decision No. 317-PKE-DKPP/X/2019. This issue has caused legal uncertainty because the constitution does not further regulate the competence of the PTUN in annulling DKPP ethical decisions. This issue then gave rise to three questions: 1). What causes the dualism of accountability for election organizer decisions between the DKPP and the PTUN and their position in the perspective of the rule of law; 2). What is the view of siyāsah qaḍhā’iyyah on the dualism of accountability for election organizer decisions between the DKPP and the PTUN; 3). How can the dualism of accountability for election organizer decisions between the DKPP and the PTUN be harmonized. This type of research uses a literature study, supplemented by a normative legal approach through legislation and a case approach. Furthermore, the data sources and legal materials consist of primary and secondary data collected using data collection techniques such as searching and tracing reference materials such as bibliographies, research results, scientific magazines, scientific bulletins, and journals. Data analysis techniques use qualitative deductive analysis techniques. Meanwhile, the theories used in this study include: the theory of the rule of law, the theory of state institutions, and siyāsah qaḍhā’iyyah. The results of this study show that: first, the cause of the dualism of accountability for election organizers' decisions between the DKPP and the PTUN and their position in the perspective of the state is that there is confusion between ethical norms and legal norms, compounded by the issues and dynamics of constitutional court decisions, and in the perspective of the rule of law, there is a difference in the position of decisions between the DKPP and the PTUN; second, the siyāsah qaḍhā’iyyah view of dualism, namely, the DKPP as a reflection of the wilāyah ḥisbah function and the PTUN as a reflection of the wilāyah qaḍhā’ function, there is a fundamental position between wilāyah ḥisbah (DKPP) and wilāyah qaḍhā’ (PTUN), whereas the PTUN adjudicates presidential decisions, but presidential decisions are based on DKPP decisions; third, harmonizing the dualism of accountability for these decisions, namely through amendments to the 1945 Constitution as a long-term solution and through a Supreme Court circular letter as a short-term solution.342.07 Hukum Pemilihan Umum, Hukum Pemilu2026-01-27UIN SUNAN KALIJAGA YOGYAKARTA;FAKULTAS SYARIAH DAN HUKUMThesis