T This research is entitled Comparison of Dispute Resolution of Presidential and Vice Presidential Election Results in Indonesia and Uruguay. The main problems raised are: What is the mechanism for resolving disputes over the Presidential and Vice Presidential Election Results in Indonesia and Uruguay? and What are the similarities and differences in resolving disputes over the Presidential and Vice Presidential Election Results in Indonesia and Uruguay? The method used in writing this thesis is a normative research type with a descriptive research nature supported by secondary data, sourced from primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. Based on the analysis conducted, it can be concluded that in Indonesia, the Constitutional Court (MK) plays an important role in adjudicating disputes over election results, has the authority to decide on election results after a dispute request is submitted, the MK handles election disputes following formal and legal procedures with a final and binding decision. Meanwhile, in Uruguay, the Corte Electoral is responsible for the entire election process including resolving election disputes, conducting in-depth investigations and corrective actions as needed. In adjudicating disputes over election results, the Corte Electoral is more flexible and less bound by complex legal procedures. A comparison of the dispute resolution mechanisms for the presidential and vice presidential election process in Indonesia and Uruguay shows significant differences in terms of function and authority. In Indonesia, the Constitutional Court has broad authority including testing laws, resolving election result disputes, and deciding on the dissolution of political parties, with decisions that are final and binding. Meanwhile, the Uruguayan Corte Electoral focuses on regulating and supervising election administration and handling election result disputes.