Muhammad Irfan (Petitioner) at the panel preliminary hearing for the judicial review of Law No. 23 of 2014 on Regional Governments, Friday (12/20/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held the preliminary hearing for the material judicial review of Article 216 paragraphs (2) and (3), Article 379 paragraph (2), and Article 380 paragraphs (1) and (2) of Law No. 23 of 2014 on Regional Governments on Friday, December 20, 2024. Petitioners for case No. 177/PUU-XXII/2024 Arivan Utama and Muhammad Irfan alleged that those articles are in violation of Article 1 paragraph (3), Article 18 paragraph (5), Article 28C paragraphs (1) and (2), Article 28D paragraph (1), Article 28I paragraph (5), and Article 33 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution.

Before Constitutional Justices Enny Nurbaningsih (panel chair), Anwar Usman, and Constitutional Justice M. Guntur Hamzah, legal counsel Lakso Anindito conveyed the subject matters of the petition, one being related to Article 216 paragraph (3) of the Regional Government Law, which reads, “In carrying out their duties, the Regional Inspectorate shall be responsible to the head of the region through the regional secretary.”

The Petitioners argued that the article does not reflect fair legal certainty and equality before the law, as the regional inspectorate is responsible to the head of the region, thus could potentially allow unchecked local political interests and could hinder corruption eradication in the region.

The Petitioners admitted that while Article 8 paragraph (3) of the Regional Government Law has mandated the regional government’s internal supervision to the inspectorate, which is under the Ministry of Home Affairs, its lack of independence—shown by its accountability to the head of region through the regional secretary—would lead to ineffective supervision.

“Therefore, it could lead to conflicts of interests, and oftentimes the inspectorate cannot implement its supervisory function optimally. Its lack of independence not only results in weak supervision, but also in direct involvement in corruption practices in the region,” Anindito explained.

Petitums

Therefore, the Petitioners requested that the Court declare Article 216 paragraph (2) of the Regional Government Law conditionally unconstitutional and not legally binding if not be interpreted as, “The Regional Inspectorate shall be responsible for supporting the Minister in fostering and supervising the implementation of Government affairs which are the authority of the region and Assistance Tasks by Regional Apparatuses;” Article 216 paragraph (3) conditionally unconstitutional and not legally binding if not be interpreted as, “In carrying out their duties, the Regional Inspectorate shall be responsible to the Minister through the Ministry’s Inspector-General at the provincial level and through the Provincial Inspector at the regency/city level.”

They also requested that the Court declare these articles conditionally unconstitutional and not legally binding: Article 379 paragraph (2) if not be interpreted as, “In carrying out fostering and supervision as referred to in paragraph (1), the Governor shall coordinate with the Provincial Inspector;” Article 380 paragraph (1) if not be interpreted as, “Through the Governor, the Minister shall be obligated to foster and supervise Regency/City Apparatuses;” and Article 380 paragraph (2) if not be interpreted as, “The Governor shall coordinate with the Provincial Inspector with the support of the Regency/City Inspectorate.”

Justices’ Advice

Constitutional Justice M. Guntur Hamzah stated that the legal standing, which is most crucial in a petition, should be clarified. As Petitioner I is an advocate while Petitioner II is a private employee, it is hard to see their legal standing. “What are their relations to the regional inspectorate? Have they experienced any relevant incident, such as being inspected by the regional inspectorate? This is the main challenge. Please discuss in-depth so that the Court will view that the Petitioners have legal standing,” he advised.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Anwar Usman highlighted that while the implementation of the norm can be the entry to the case, the Petitioners should explain the contradiction between the articles petitioned and the Constitution. “The Petitioners should elaborate the conflict clearly,” he said.

Next, Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih highlighted the legal standing, which is complicated and takes focus. The case not only concerns the articles being reviewed, but also regional autonomy and decentralization.

“This concerns the regional apparatuses—how to portion decentralization versus regional autonomy, what the conflict is between the norms and the Constitution. This is part of the implementation of regional government, how can it be independent? There is tiered evaluation, starting from the governor to the minister, each with their position. How do you explain this?” she asked.

Before concluding the session, Justice Enny announced that the Petitioners would have 14 days to revise the petition and must submit the revised petition by Thursday, January 2, 2025 to the Registrar’s Office. The next hearing to examine the revisions will be scheduled afterwards. 

Author         : Sri Pujianti
Editor          : N. Rosi
PR               : Fauzan F.
Translator     : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian versions, the Indonesian version will prevail.

---