2025 Parliamentary Performance Report: DPR Oversight and Integrity Receive Grade D

The Indonesian Parliamentary Centre (IPC) has officially launched the 2025 Parliamentary Performance Index (IKP). The results show that the overall institutional quality of the Indonesian House of Representatives (DPR) obtained a score of 2.55 out of 5.00 (Grade C). This value indicates that the standards for a democratic parliament within the DPR are only partially met and still possess significant weaknesses.

The preparation of the 2025 IKP adopted the Indicators for Democratic Parliaments from the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), a global parliamentary organisation used as a worldwide reference. Out of the four main aspects measured, the use of oversight rights and the management of conflicts of interest were identified as the two most fragile points within the DPR institution. In the index, the use of oversight rights received a score of 1.57, or Grade D (Not met), while the use of conflict of interest management rights received a score of 1.88, also Grade D.

IPC Director Ahmad Hanafi emphasised that the DPR does not actually lack formal rules or mechanisms. “The issue is whether all of these are truly used to oversee the government, maintain integrity, and remain accountable to the public,” Hanafi stated during a public discussion on Thursday, 30 July 2026.

The 2025 IKP measures four main aspects of the DPR’s institutional capacity: parliamentary effectiveness, ethics and integrity, transparency and access, and public participation. Regarding public participation, the DPR achieved its highest score of 2.71, followed by transparency and access at 2.68, and parliamentary effectiveness at 2.57. Ethics and integrity emerged as the weakest aspect with a score of 2.31.

Despite achieving its highest score in public participation, the process has not been fully institutionalised. While the DPR opens spaces for public hearings, it fails to provide explanations on whether public input is considered, accepted, or rejected, which is a mandate of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 91/PUU-XVIII/2020. More serious vulnerabilities were found in the ethics and integrity aspect, where mechanisms to prevent and handle conflicts between personal, business, political, and public interests remain very weak. The enforcement of the code of ethics, the disclosure of wealth reports (LHKPN), and the consistency of sanctions are deemed in need of massive strengthening.

Another critical point lies in the oversight function. While the DPR is active in routine working meetings, the use of constitutional rights—such as interpellation, inquiries, and expressing opinions—is minimal (score 1.57). Hanafi noted that the true measure of DPR oversight is whether it can uncover issues, produce clear recommendations, ensure government follow-up, and maintain the balance of power.

A gap between authority and execution is also evident in the legislative process. Legislative procedures only scored 2.29, while post-enactment monitoring of laws scored 2.31, suggesting the DPR focuses more on passing bills than evaluating the effectiveness of existing laws. Furthermore, the openness of the legislative process is inconsistent; agendas, academic papers, bill drafts, and discussion recordings are not always fully available, making it difficult for the public to track substantive changes.

Similar issues were found in the budgeting function. Although the DPR is relatively active in discussing and approving the State Budget (APBN), oversight during budget execution and after the fiscal year ends remains limited, with a score of 2.35. Limited access to data and analytical capacity affect the DPR’s ability to ensure state funds are used effectively and accountably.

IPC researcher Choris Satun Nikmah stated that the IPC encourages the DPR to use the 2025 IKP results as a basis for institutional improvement during the 2024–2029 period. The first priority should be strengthening internal integrity through credible ethics enforcement, managing conflicts of interest, and transparent wealth reporting. Secondly, the quality of legislative, oversight, and budgeting functions must be improved through document transparency and meaningful public consultation. Thirdly, a structured public feedback mechanism must be built, where the DPR explains why public input is accepted or rejected. The IPC emphasises that the IKP is not an assessment of individual members, but a baseline for monitoring institutional progress.