Legal Literacy - This article discusses changes in the system the government Indonesia after the New Order era and the massive reform agenda carried out to abolish the centralisation style in leadership. However, currently, the presence of oligarchy in taking roles and consensus for the country is rife and worrying. This article also discusses the Special Autonomy in the National Capital City (IKN) and concerns about its constitutionality, considering the IKN Authority institution which is equivalent to a ministry that has never existed in the constitutional customs in the Republic of Indonesia.
By: Ch Idzan Falaqi Harmer, Postgraduate Student (Master of Law) Faculty of Law, Gadjah Mada University.
After ending the era of government New Order which had been in power for 32 years, the very strong centralisation style in the narrative of the New Order era leadership faded thanks to the massive reform agenda throughout Indonesia. Reproaches from several regions who wanted to separate from the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia, such as: Aceh, Riau, Papua were considered serious problems that had emasculated the regions in the principle of recognising 'the right of origin' in a government that tended to be autocratic at that time, so that it was not in line with the initial ideals of the founding of this republic.
In a new chapter, the neo-colonialism style displayed by the practice of government today is a portrait of the rampant presence of oligarchy in taking roles and consensus for this country. As its ultimate goal, is to increase the power of capital and politics for its group—which in reality this should have been rejected and buried as deeply as possible in order to achieve social justice for all Indonesian people. Ironically, this practice seems to be supported by the power held by a group of people in the government. In fact, this is considered more dangerous than the authoritarianism practice in the New Order era.
Special Autonomy in IKN: An Analytical Blade of Legislation
Through the MPR General Session on August 18, 2000, there was an agreement to make the second amendment to the 1945 Constitution, namely in the contents of Articles 18, 18A, and 18B regarding the status of special regions and special autonomous regions. At least, after the amendment to the article, there are several regions that are special and special autonomous such as: Aceh, Yogyakarta, Papua, and Jakarta—then, a nomenclature new in IKN, namely Nusantara and further explained through Article 1 number 2 of Law Number 3 of 2022: “The State Capital is named Nusantara and hereinafter referred to as the National Capital City is a special regional government unit equivalent to a province whose territory is the seat of the State Capital as stipulated and regulated by this Lawâ€.
A 'special characteristic' and different from the practice of granting 'special' and 'privileged' status to the aforementioned regions is re-emphasized in Article 5 Paragraph (3), which states that: "Excluding other regional government units, only national-level general elections are held in the National Capital of Nusantara." Indeed, its formation is intended as a mandate for the continuity of the new capital for the Republic of Indonesia. However, it should be noted that its implementation should not contradict the principles that have been built and implemented in Indonesia.
Clearly, as mentioned in the 'considering' section, one of the foundations for the formation of this Law is Article 18 paragraph (1) and Article 18 (2) of the 1945 Constitution as the constitutional basis for the formation of this Law. It is necessary to review whether the formation of this Law is in line with the meaning of the basic law that is the foundation. in the context of implementing special autonomy in Indonesia.
That the existence of the 1945 Constitution as a basis in the 'considering' section does not fully answer the question of the Constitutionality of IKN—in principle. Regarding the constitutional basis used in the Law, it has provided a shift in the placement of the 'Nusantara Capital City Authority' as an institution equivalent to a ministry (Article 4 Paragraph (1) point b), which has never existed in the constitutional customs of this republic. Thus, the placement of the 'equivalent' is a new practice that has violated the constitution as the highest legal norm.
In principle, regional governments, as the basis in the 'considering' section through Article 18 Paragraph (1) and Paragraph (2), even if recognized as regions with the granting of 'special characteristics' or 'privileges,' there has never been a form or practice that makes them equivalent to a ministry. This means that the new legal event in constitutional practice in this Law has far violated a number of provisions that were not carried out in previous constitutional practices and were never mentioned in the constitution.
A reality that has just been born through this Law is the existence of a new mandate in the course and implementation of government in Indonesia. The existence of a 'special' mandate is a new history in the course of 'asymmetrical decentralization' or 'special autonomy' in Indonesia. The law is the basis for the administration of government in the new capital city of the State of Indonesia. Of course, it is a joint task to oversee and criticize this new customary practice.
Comments (0)
Write a comment