Recently, the Legislative Body of the House of Representatives (DPR) approved the revision of Law Number 39 of 2008 concerning State Ministries. This decision has sparked debates from political, legal, and governmental perspectives.

This issue is closely tied to the formation of the cabinet in October, when the elected president, Prabowo Subianto, is inaugurated.

How should we interpret the discourse surrounding the revision of the State Ministries Law (hereinafter referred to as the State Ministries Law) in the context of building an effective and professional presidential cabinet?

Presidential Constitutional Power

The debate during the formulation of Law No. 39/2008 on State Ministries centered on whether the president, as the holder of executive power according to the Constitution, has absolute authority to establish, merge, and dissolve ministries, including determining the number of ministries. Alternatively, should the president’s power be limited by law?

The academic manuscript and draft of the State Ministries Bill at that time were influenced by concerns from the lawmakers in the DPR. These concerns stemmed from the Reform Era and the uncertain political future of Indonesia, which did not guarantee a conducive environment for clean and democratic governance. The goal was to promote rational, effective, and responsible decision-making by political leaders.

On the other hand, the Indonesian government, based on the amended 1945 Constitution, maintains a presidential system where the president holds executive power as stipulated in Article 4, Paragraph (1). This grants the president substantial authority under the 1945 Constitution.

However, as regulated in Article 17, Paragraph (4) of the third amendment, the president’s power to establish, modify, and dissolve state ministries is governed by law.

The academic manuscript of the State Ministries Bill emphasized the need for a checks-and-balances mechanism to prevent excessive presidential power. Despite this, the president’s prerogative to form ministries and appoint ministers remains viable within a democratic, effective, and efficient framework.

The primary debate centered on the number of ministries the president could establish.

Article 15 of Law No. 39/2008 states that the president may establish a maximum of 34 ministries. This article is seen as a limitation on the president’s executive authority.

Sectoral ego and silo mentality remain prominent issues in planning, budgeting, and implementing development programs.

Some parties advocate revising the State Ministries Law to remove Article 15, arguing that Indonesia is a vast country with increasingly complex problems, especially amid current strategic environmental changes.

Future Transformation Direction

The revision of Law No. 39/2008 on State Ministries falls under the authority of the DPR and the president.

For consideration, the following thoughts may be useful. First, according to Law No. 23/2014 on Regional Governance, Indonesia currently adopts a decentralized government system. Most governmental affairs have been delegated to district/city governments, while provincial governments manage a smaller portion.

Aside from matters under the exclusive jurisdiction of the central government, such as foreign affairs, monetary policy, security, defense, judiciary, and religion, other governmental functions are handled by district/city governments. As a result, the central government is primarily responsible for establishing norms, standards, procedures, and criteria (NSPK).

However, there are practical challenges in coordinating between the central, provincial, and district/city governments. This fragmentation has hindered the implementation of many central government strategic plans, programs, and activities at the regional level due to the lack of alignment between national and regional budgets (APBN and APBD).

For example, implementing programs to address poverty, stunting, and the human capital index remains challenging. Moreover, the structure and governance of ministries and agencies are not well integrated with local government organizations (OPD).

In other words, the current design of state ministries is incompatible with Indonesia’s decentralized governance system. Without anticipating this issue, increasing the number of ministries will further complicate coordination between the central and regional governments.

Proposals for Improvement

The author suggests that the revision of the State Ministries Law should adopt a separation between policy-making agencies and policy-implementing agencies, as practiced in several countries. In this context, the focus should be on strengthening and expanding non-ministerial government agencies (LPNK) rather than increasing the number of policy-making ministries.

For instance, the Ministry of National Development Planning (PPN) could be strengthened as the National Development Planning Agency (Bappenas). Similarly, the Ministry of Investment could be reinforced as the Investment Coordinating Board. Another idea is to establish a National Revenue Agency by separating the Directorate General of Taxes and the Directorate General of Customs and Excise from the Ministry of Finance.

A second issue in the current government is the difficulty of inter-ministerial collaboration in implementing development programs.

Sectoral ego and silo mentality remain prominent issues in planning, budgeting, and implementing development programs. Each ministry tends to operate within its jurisdiction, while national development programs require integrated, cross-ministerial collaboration.

Sectoral ego and fragmented governance arise from two main factors. First, ministry structures are function- and task-based rather than performance-based. Second, the planning and budgeting process is conducted through trilateral rather than multilateral meetings.

For example, the National Team for the Acceleration of Poverty Reduction (TNP2K) coordinates the national poverty alleviation program involving 28 ministries/agencies. However, the planning and budgeting of these programs are not collaboratively integrated across ministries/agencies.

Thus, the formation of ministries should facilitate cross-ministerial collaboration in development programs. Increasing the number of ministries will only make coordination and collaboration more challenging. The solution is to design ministries based on Key Performance Indicators (KPI) in the upcoming National Medium-Term Development Plan (RPJMN), rather than on sectoral functions.

A third consideration is the advancement of technologies such as digital technology, big data, artificial intelligence, and robotics, which enable more efficient, integrated, and accurate governance.

The adoption of these technologies will streamline ministry structures and business processes, reducing human resources.

Government offices may be replaced by digital workspaces, decision-making will become faster and more accurate, and inter-ministerial coordination will improve.

One proposed solution is to adopt a platform governance model, with a digital-based government structure featuring flat organizational hierarchies, agile and integrated business processes, and shared human and financial resources across ministries and agencies.

Under this model, the number of ministries could remain the same as today in their capacity as policy-making agencies. However, their internal structures would become flatter and more integrated with other ministries and agencies. This approach would enhance cross-ministerial collaboration in implementing national development programs.

Eko Prasojo, Executive Secretary of the National Bureaucratic Reform Steering Committee (KPRBN) and Professor of Public Administration at the University of Indonesia

Source: Kompas.com