Regional Autonomy Is Not a New Centralisation: Unravelling the Limits of Local Government Authority

The constitutional reforms following Indonesia’s 1998 Reformasi gave birth to a new paradigm of governance through decentralisation and regional autonomy. The primary objectives were to bring services closer to the public, accelerate development, and encourage local democracy. In practice, however, the relationship of authority between the central government, governors, and regents or mayors still frequently raises issues. One recurring problem is the blurring of jurisdictional boundaries, which can lead to the dominance of one level of government over another.

The 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and Law Number 23 of 2014 have actually clearly regulated the division of authority. Nevertheless, implementation is often influenced by political factors, leadership, and bureaucratic culture, so that a coordinative relationship can shift into one perceived as a command relationship.

The Constitution does not place the governor as the superior of the regent. Article 18 of the 1945 Constitution affirms that provinces, regencies, and cities are autonomous regions that regulate and manage their own governmental affairs according to the principles of autonomy and co-administration. The constitution does not state that the governor is the hierarchical superior of the regent or mayor in all governmental affairs.

Law Number 23 of 2014 grants the governor a dual position, namely as the head of the provincial region and as the representative of the central government. In the capacity as the central government’s representative, the governor carries out functions of guidance, supervision, and coordination of regency/city government administration within the limits determined by law. This function does not mean the governor can take over all regency/city governmental authority or replace the attribution authority granted to the regent.

Experts provide perspective on this matter. Jimly Asshiddiqie explains that in a unitary state that implements decentralisation, the division of authority is an instrument to bring public services closer to the community. Decentralisation is not a pseudo-delegation of power that remains fully controlled by the level of government above it. According to him, the relationship between the centre and the regions must be based on a clear division of governmental affairs to prevent a concentration of power that contradicts the spirit of reform. This view serves as a reminder that provincial governments must not evolve into new centres of power that reduce the policy space of regency/city governments.

Bagir Manan asserts that the essence of regional autonomy is independence in regulating and managing the interests of the local community based on their own initiative and aspirations. Autonomy is not merely the execution of instructions from a higher level of government. Therefore, guidance by the governor must be understood as an effort to improve the quality of regional governance, not as a basis for controlling all regency/city policies.

Philipus M. Hadjon stresses that every action of a government official must be based on the principle of legality. There is no authority without a legal basis (geen bevoegdheid zonder wet). An official cannot expand their scope of authority simply because they possess political legitimacy, popularity, or bureaucratic influence. This concept is crucial to prevent governance that exceeds the limits of authority determined by laws and regulations.

Ni’matul Huda argues that the success of regional autonomy is largely determined by the clarity of the division of governmental affairs. Unclear boundaries of authority will give rise to administrative conflicts, bureaucratic inefficiency, and the shifting of responsibility between levels of government.

In a democratic state, strong leadership is an important asset for governmental effectiveness. A governor can be the driving force for development coordination, synergising cross-regency/city programmes, and bridging central government policies with regional needs. Visionary leadership is often even a factor in a province’s development success. However, strong leadership must remain within legal corridors. In a state based on the rule of law (rechtsstaat), the measure of governmental success is not only effectiveness but also compliance with the division of authority established by the constitution and laws. A public official cannot expand their authority simply because they possess political legitimacy, a high level of popularity, or significant bureaucratic influence.

In administrative law, the doctrine of ultra vires is recognised, referring to actions by officials that exceed the authority granted by law. This doctrine developed in the common law tradition and aligns with the principle of legality in Indonesia’s administrative legal system. According to Philipus M. Hadjon, every governmental authority originates from attribution, delegation, or mandate. If an official carries out an action outside these sources of authority, the action can be assessed as lacking a legal basis. In the context of regional government, this means that the coordination, guidance, and supervisory functions held by a governor are not identical to the authority to take over all decision-making that legally falls under the affairs of regencies or cities. An assessment of whether an action constitutes an overreach of authority must be made based on legal provisions and demonstrable facts.