EFEKTIVITAS PENYELENGGARAAN DEKONSENTRASI SEBAGAI WEWENANG GUBERNUR DALAM KEDUDUKAN SEBAGAI WAKIL PEMERINTAH PUSAT DI DAERAH

Main Article Content

Dian Bakti Setiawan

Abstract

Deconcentration is an important element in the administration of the state. Its existence is not only in administrative law order, but also in Constitutional law  because - like decentralization - it concerns the foundations and organization of the state. If decentralization gave birth to local government (autonomous region), then deconcentration gave birth to local state government (administrative area). These administrative areas are headed by what is known theoretically as a Prefector. For the Indonesian context, the prefector is held by the governor in such a way that the governor has a dual position, namely as the head of the autonomous region of the province as well as the prefector. The laws governing local government in Indonesia use the term representative of the center in the regions for the designation of prefector. Since the reformation until now, the administration of government from the center to the regions seems to have marginalized deconcentration as the governance structure. There was a strong impression during the reform era that looked at deconcentration as if were the antithesis of democracy. The impression was so strong that deconcentration and administrative areas were no longer included in the post-amendment 1945 Constitution. The deconcentrative authority possessed by the governor to revoke Regency/City Regional Regulations (Perda) that are contrary to higher laws, public interests, and decency, was annulled by the constitutional court in its decision in 2016. Furthermore, budgeting and regulation and formation the apparatus that assists the governor as the central representative in the regions appears to be running slowly. In this way the question arises: is the implementation of deconcentration effective by the governor as the representative of the central government in the regions? To answer this question, research was carried out on the implementation of the deconcentration. The results of the research show that the implementation of the deconcentration has not been effective due to various limitations: limited tools, limited rules, and limited authority

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Bakti Setiawan, D. (2022). EFEKTIVITAS PENYELENGGARAAN DEKONSENTRASI SEBAGAI WEWENANG GUBERNUR DALAM KEDUDUKAN SEBAGAI WAKIL PEMERINTAH PUSAT DI DAERAH. UNES Law Review, 5(2), 580-597. https://doi.org/10.31933/unesrev.v5i2.362
Section
Articles

References

Asshiddiqie, J. (2002). Konsolidasi Naskah UUD 1945 setelah Amandemen Keempat.
Jakarta: PSIH Fakultas Hukum UI.
Chow, M. E., & Losari, J. J. (2015). Multiple Authorisation : The Legal Complexity of Desentralisasi in Indonesia and The Potensial Contribution of IIAS in Reducing Confusion. Indonesia Law review, 5, 249.
Faisal, S. (1989). Format-Format Penelitian Sosial. Jakarta: Raja Grafindo Persada. Fried, R. (1967). The Italian Prefect: A Study in Administrative and Politic. New
Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Gie, T. L. (1995). Pertumbuhan Pemerintahan Daerah di Negara RI (Vol. 1). Yogyakarta.
Green, P. (1993). Key Concepts in Critical Theory Democracy. New Jersey: Humanities Press.
JONES, GW Local Government and Field Administration: Some Models, Local Government
Studies: September/October 1987.
Kaho, J. R. (1992). Mekanisme Pengontrolan dalam Hubungan Pemerintah Pusat dan
Daerah (Suatu Studi Perbandingan). Jakarta: Bina Aksara.
Kementerian Dalam Negeri. (tanpa thn.). Dipetik Juli 15, 2022, dari litbang.kemendagri.go.id
Manan, B. (1990). Hubungan Pusat dan Daerah Berdasarkan Asas Desentralisasi
Menurut UUD 1945. Bandung: Disertasi Universitas Padjajaran.
Manan, B. (2004). Menyongsong Fajar Otonomi Daerah. Yogyakarta: PSH Fakultas
Hukum UII.
The Encyclopedia Americana (International ed.). (1995).
Undang-Undang Nomor 23 Tahun 2014 Tentang Pemerintahan Daerah.