---

Applicant’s Attorney representing by Andi Syafrani delivers petition points at preliminary session on Act of Regional Governance, on Monday (23/11) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ganie

 

 

 

A number of regents and mayors incorporated in the Indonesian Regents Association (Asosiasi Pemerintah Kabupaten Seluruh Indonesia –APKASI) file petition reviewing Act Number 23 Year 2014 of Regional Governance (UU Pemerintahan Daerah).

Representing by Andi Syafrani as Applicant’s Attorney, the APKASI questions central-regional authority division provision stated in Act a quo. They assess the provision restricts regency/city government authority by expanding central government authority to annul regulations issued by regency/city government.

According to Syafrani, the provision negates people’s voice that reflected by regional head elections and regional legislatives elections, as well as negates state administrative court’s authority to examine regulations derived from Act towards the Act.                                                                                                      

“Regarding the classification of government affairs, it is a form of authority centralism, restriction on regency/city government authority, and fictitious autonomy model,” said him. He further says that the provision limits regency/city government’s space in serving people.

Syafrani assesses the legislators of the Act a quo intend to annul autonomous regency/city government authority by adding the phrase ‘concurrent’. According to him, the phrase means that regional government affairs is a part of central government authority, therefore it reduces and contrary to the principle of regional autonomy.

Regarding the regional government authority to manage natural resources, Syafrani says the Act a quo has shackled regent/mayor authority in conducting Regency Regulation cancellation. According to him, the Applicant requests the implementation of Act Number 32 Year 2004 may remain in force temporarily until the new regional autonomy and regional governance Act enacted, in order to prevent legal void.  

Responding the petition, Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo reminds the Applicant to recognize Applicant’s legal standing, particularly on the representative of regional interest in courts. In fact, the Constitutional Court Verdict has stated that only the Regional Legislative Council (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah –DPRD) and regional heads who able to represent regional interest in courts. Moreover, Suhartoyo asks the Applicant’s Attorney to recognize Applicant’s domicile in their authorization letter.

Constitutional Justice Aswanto examines Applicant’s constitutional loss that isn’t clearly explained in the petition. Moreover, Aswanto assesses that petition writing systematics is slightly incorrect. According to him, the introductory part of the petition can be included in petition arguments. Regarding Suhartoyo’s input which concern on Applicant’s legal standing, Aswanto advises that the legal standing may be related consistently with constitutional loss.   

Moreover, Constitutional Justice Patrialis Akbar who leads the session says that the Applicant may relate their constitutional loss with the authority of regional government stated in the 1945 Constitution. “We recommend you to elaborate regency/city government constitutional recognition,” said the former of the People’s Consultative Assembly’s Ad Hoc I Committee member. According to him, regional autonomy is a part of the Unitary State of Republic of Indonesia which guaranteed in the 1945 Constitution, in which regional government consists of the DPRD and regional heads.

Moreover, Akbar also advises the Applicant to connect the governor’s authority to cancel regency regulation and the Supreme Court’s authority which stated in the 1945 Constitution. (Ilham/Prasetyo Adi N)

---