Medico-legal Update, October-December 2020, Vol. 20, No. 4 2107 Psychological Obstacles of the PTUN Judges and Regulatory Reconstruction of the DKPP Verdict in Enforcing the General Election Organization Code of Ethics Rudhi Achsoni 1 , Istislam 2 , Herman Suryokumoro 2 , Aan Eko Widiarto 2 1 Doctorate Student Universitas Brawijaya Malang, 2 Associate Professor, Universitas Brawijaya Malang Abstract Verdict of the DKPP in Article 458 clause (13) in the Law No. 7 of 2017 on the General Election is fnal and binding. Yet, the implementation stage of the “fnal and binding” phrase causes multi-interpretation. Thus, there are some verdicts of the General Election Honorary Organizing Council (DKPP) which underwent legal eforts to the State Administration Court (PTUN). As a form of ius constituendum, the writer suggests that there should be a regulatory reconstruction on the verdicts of the DKPP in upholding the code of ethics in organizing the general election, by classifying that the verdicts of the DKPP is an ethical verdict; thus it is not proper to be corrected by the legal verdict in the PTUN. The room for correction will be opened by mandating it to the Court of Ethics. The ethical verdict corrected in the PTUN will risk the judges’ independence. It is highly possible that they will experience psychological pressure in making a verdict on the general election ethic violation in their capacity as Civil servant (PNS) who are institutionally under the Ministry of State Apparature Empowerment (Menpan), which specifcally the minister is a political ofcial which is chosen by the president. Keywords: Reconstruction, DKPP Verdict, Code of Ethics in Establishing the General Election, and Psychology of Judges. Introduction This research is entitled the regulatory reconstruction of the DKPP verdict in upholding the code of ethics in establishing the general election and also the psychological obstacles of the State Administration Court. The legal problem starts from the blanked norm in Article 458 clause (13) of the Law No. 7 on 2017 on the General Election. This article states that, “The verdict as aforementioned in clause (10) is fnal and binding.” In the explanation of that Article, it has been clearly stated that from the phrase “fnal and binding”, the DKPP verdict must be implemented by the president, the General Election Commission (KPU), the Provincial General Election Commission (KPUD), the External Monitoring Body (Bawaslu), and the Provincial External Monitoring Body (Bawaslu Provinsi) Based on the writers’ observation, the parties which carry out legal eforts to the PTUN uses the basis of the Constitutional Court Decree No. 31/PUU-XI/2013 1 . The Constitutional Court Decree basically explains that the DKPP verdict is binding to the president, the General Election Commission, KPUD, the City/Regency General Election Commission, and the External Monitoring Body, but not fnal to the justice-seekers 2 . On one side, in the perspective of the state administrative law, the Constitutional Court’s Decree may be understood. But, from the aspect of the State Administrative Law, the writer believes that it is improper to position the DKPP the same as other State Administration organs. 3 and also the independence in ethical decisions. The DKPP verdict which cancels the general election organizer, from the KPU or Bawaslu due to the ethical codes, cannot directly be applied. If the legal efort to the PTUN is deemed as correct, thus the PTUN Verdict will in the end be measured and evaluated based on the truth according to the legal perspective. It will be decided upon with the risk of the PTUN judges’ lack of independence as PNS who