263

Sukardi, Dodi Jaya Wardana

LJIH 32 (2) September-2024, 263-276

LEGALITY: JURNAL ILMIAH HUKUM
Journal homepage: http://www.ejournal.umm.ac.id/index.php/legality

Does the Government have the Authority to
Annul Regional Regulations?
Sukardi1*, Dodi Jaya Wardana2
1 Faculty of Law, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, East Java, 60286, Indonesia
2 Faculty of Law, Universitas Muhammadiyah Gresik, Gresik, East Java, 61121, Indonesia
* Corresponding author: sukardi@fh.unair.ac.id

Article

Abstract

Keywords:
Ratio
Decidendi;
Constitutional
Court
Decision; Authority to
Annul;
Regional
Regulation.

The existence of a dualism in the authority to annul Regional Regulations by the
Supreme Court through judicial review and by the Government through executive
review has been a significant issue. However, through the Constitutional Court
Decisions Number 137/PUU-XIII/2015 and Number 56/PUUXIV/2016, the Government's authority to annul Regional Regulations has been
revoked, transferring this authority to the Supreme Court. This article discusses
about the ratio decidendi of the Constitutional Court decisions regarding the
authority to annul Regional Regulations and the implications of these decisions on
the mechanism for supervising Regional Regulation. This normative juridical
research employs conceptual, case, and statutory approaches. The analysis shows
that the decisions of the Constitutional Court Numbers 137/PUU-XIII/2015
and 56/PUU-XIV/2016 led to a significant reduction in the quality and
execution power of the Supreme Court decisions concerning judicial reviews, creating
potential policy conflicts between central and regional governments, and between
petitioners and local governments, and hindering the supervision of Regional
Regulations due to the Supreme Court's reactive nature in awaiting applications.

Article History
Received: Jul 11, 2024;
Reviewed: Jul 12, 2024;
Accepted: Aug 1, 2024;
Published: Aug 1, 2024.

Copyright ©2024 by Author(s); This work is licensed under a Creative
Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. All writings
published in this journal are personal views of the authors and do not represent
the views of this journal and the author's affiliated institutions.

INTRODUCTION
Indonesia uses the law as a foundation for the government to administer state
affairs. As a consequence of being a constitutional state, all legislation, including
regional regulations, must not conflict with the principles of the unitary state and
national law (Wijayanto, 2014). Therefore, there must be mechanisms to supervise
regional regulations to ensure they do not contradict these principles. Supervision is

ISSN (Print) 0854-6509 - ISSN (Online) 2549-4600

Sukardi, Dodi Jaya Wardana

264

LJIH 32 (2) September-2024, 263-276

necessary to ensure that regional regulations align with the unitary state principles and
national law (Alfath et al., 2020) and also serve to protect the citizens from
governmental arbitrariness. The role of legislation within a constitutional state is to
provide a basis for state administration and to guide governance at both the national
level with laws and at the regional level with regional regulations. The necessary
legislation must be accommodative to the demands, needs, and developments of the
society to realize a democratic constitutional state, often referred to as a modern
welfare state (Jaya et al., 2021).
Regional regulations must not conflict with higher regulations and the public
interest (Gunawan, 2019; Prayitno, 2017; Sukma, 2017). If a regional regulation
contains elements that conflict with higher legislation and the public interest, it can be
annulled (Haruni, 2022)(Wardana et al., 2023). Prior to the Constitutional Court
decision on the authority to annul regional regulations, such annulment was the
responsibility of the central government, specifically the Ministry of Home Affairs and
the provincial governors, as part of their supervisory role over the regions. The essence
of annulment by the central government relates to administrative law, where legal
action is required when a government official's decision is legally flawed or no longer
meets formal or substantive requirements. The goal is to protect individuals and the
community adversely affected by local government regulations and to restore or negate
the legal consequences of a regulation (Shadiqin, 2020).
An annulment can be executed by the decision-maker, the superior of the
decision-maker, or by the court, in this case, the Administrative Court. Although
annulment actions are typically used against decisions (beschikking) in administrative
law, it is legally rational to apply them to regional regulations or regulations by regional
heads because, constitutionally, the President holds the highest governmental
responsibility. The authority to annul regional regulations has now been transferred to
the Supreme Court through Constitutional Court Decisions Number 137/PUUXIII/2015 and Number 56/PUU-XIV/2016 regarding the annulment authority of
regional regulations. The Association of All Indonesian Regency Governments filed a
judicial review regarding this authority in 2015 at the Constitutional Court. The
petitioner requested that any regulation related to the annulment of Regional
Regulations in Article 251 of Law Number 23 of 2014 concerning Regional
Government should be immediately annulled by the Constitutional Court. This
decision also forms the basis for the Supreme Court to annul Regional Regulations at
both the provincial and regency/city levels.
Following the issuance of Constitutional Court Decisions Number 137/PUUXIII/2015 and 56/PUU-XIV/2016, the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Governor
no longer have the authority to revoke Regional Regulations. This authority is now
vested in the Supreme Court. Looking back, what the Ministry of Home Affairs did
was very effective; in June 2016 alone, at least 3,143 regulations were annulled because

ISSN (Print) 0854-6509 - ISSN (Online) 2549-4600

Sukardi, Dodi Jaya Wardana

265

LJIH 32 (2) September-2024, 263-276

they contradicted the provisions of Article (251) paragraphs (1) and (2) of Law
Number 23 of 2014. Given that many Regional Regulations still conflict with national
laws and likely will continue, regional governments have the authority to create
Regional Regulations (Sihombing, 2017).
Before the Constitutional Court issued decisions 137/PUU-XIII/2015 and 56
PUU-XIV/2016, the central government had the authority to revoke Regional
Regulations through the Minister of Home Affairs and the Governor. In connection
with "executive review," the objective was to address regulations through the approach
of revoking or annulling specific regulations that did not comply with legal norms. This
internal examination, meaning "executive review," was conducted to ensure that
regulations created by the government (executive) remained synchronized and
consistent from a normative perspective, vertically maintained, legally orderly, and
certain to meet the community’s sense of justice or socio-economic changes (Rismana
& Hariyanto, 2021).
However, after the issuance of the two Constitutional Court decisions, Number
137/PUU-XIII/2015 in April 2017 and Number 56/PUU-XIV/2016 in June 2017,
the first decision, 137/PUU-XIII/2015, annulled the authority of the Minister of
Home Affairs and the Governor related to the cancellation of regional and city/district
regulations as well as the regulations of regents/mayors by granting the petitioners’
request for the review of Articles 2, 3, 4, and 8. The second decision, 56/PUUXIV/2016, revoked the authority of the Minister of Home Affairs and the Governor
to revoke Regional Regulations and transferred the authority for the cancellation of
Regional Regulations to the Supreme Court (Sukmariningsih, 2017). Whether
transferring the authority to revoke Regional Regulations to the Supreme Court was
the best decision is questionable, considering what the Minister of Home Affairs had
done previously; in June 2016, there were 3,143 regulations cancelled or revised by the
Central Government. This number includes 1,765 regional regulations of
cities/districts revoked or revised by the Minister of Home Affairs, evidence that the
government was serious about eliminating problematic Regional Regulations
(Nugroho et al., 2020). Based on the background of the problem above, this article
explores and examines the Constitutional Court's decision regarding which institution
has the authority to cancel Regional Regulations.
METHOD
This normative legal study (Negara, 2023) utilizes statutory, conceptual, and case
approaches (Al-Fatih, 2023). This study analyses the ratio decidendi of the
Constitutional Court Decisions Number 137/PUU-XIII/2015 and Number 56/PUUXIV/2016 concerning the authority to cancel regional regulations.

ISSN (Print) 0854-6509 - ISSN (Online) 2549-4600

Sukardi, Dodi Jaya Wardana

266

LJIH 32 (2) September-2024, 263-276

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Ratio Decidendi of Constitutional Court Decisions concerning the Authority to
Annul Regional Regulations
The Constitutional Court, through Decisions No. 137/PUU-XIII/2015 and No.
56/PUU-XIV/2016, ruled that the authority of the Minister of Home Affairs and the
Governor as representatives of the central government to unilaterally annul provincial
regulations, gubernatorial regulations, and district/municipal regulations was
unconstitutional, violating Article 18(6), Article 28D(1), and Article 24A(1) of the 1945
Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (Trinanda, 2022). According to the Court,
regional regulations, as legal products subordinate to national laws, should not be
canceled unilaterally by the central government through the Minister of Home Affairs
but must go through a judicial review conducted by the Supreme Court, as mandated
by Article 24A (1) of the 1945 Constitution, which authorizes it to review subordinate
legislation against higher laws.
However, further examination under the law shows that the authority to review
laws rests with the Constitutional Court after referring to Law No. 12 of 2011
concerning the Establishment of Legislation, where regional regulations are included
under this law as stated in Article 7(1) of the Law concerning the Establishment of
Legislation, which describes the "hierarchy of legislation". It raises the question of why
the Constitutional Court then delegates this authority to the Supreme Court. Following
the decisions No. 137/PUU-XIII/2015 and No. 56/PUU-XIV/2016 regarding the
authority to annul regional regulations, is it effective or is it followed up by the House
of Representatives (DPR) to amend the law, considering that as long as the law remains
unchanged, the Supreme Court will find it difficult to exercise the authority granted by
the Constitutional Court?
The Constitutional Court is a judicial institution empowered to assess the
constitutionality of laws based on Article 24C (1) of the 1945 Constitution (Al-Fatih,
2018), stating that the Constitutional Court has the authority to adjudicate at the first
and last instance whose decisions are final to review laws against the Constitution (Al
Fatih & Nur, 2023). The Court's review of laws fundamentally identifies any
inconsistencies between the laws being reviewed and the norms of the 1945
Constitution (Muslim et al., 2023), which serve as the basis for the review. If the Court
finds inconsistencies, the norms within the law in question will be declared in conflict
with the 1945 Constitution and, therefore, lack binding legal force (Kansil & Candra,
2024).
One of the constitutional powers granted to the Supreme Court as an executor of
Judicial Authority is to review legislation, commonly known as Material Testing or
Judicial Review. The main goal in granting the power to review legislation is to clarify
and reinforce the role and duties of the Supreme Court in its judicial capacity, enabling
it to oversee compliance by the government or authorities. This authority is further

ISSN (Print) 0854-6509 - ISSN (Online) 2549-4600

Sukardi, Dodi Jaya Wardana

267

LJIH 32 (2) September-2024, 263-276

detailed in Article 20 paragraph (2) letter b of Law No. 48 of 2009 concerning Judicial
Authority, which states that the Supreme Court has the authority to test the
constitutionality of subordinate legislation against higher laws. Moreover, Article 1
paragraph (1) of the Supreme Court Regulation No. 1 of 2011 evaluates the content
of subordinate legislation against higher legislative norms.
Concerning the potential for conflict between higher and lower norms, this relates
to the relationship between laws or customary law and court decisions and between
the constitution and laws. The relationship between laws or general norms of
customary law and court decisions can be interpreted in the same way. Court decisions
create specific norms that must be considered valid and, therefore, legal as long as
these decisions have not been annulled in a legally prescribed manner.
The general principle underlying a law's validity can be formulated through a legal
norm always being valid; a legal norm cannot be void (null), but it is annullable.
However, there are varying degrees of annullability. The legal system may authorize a
specific organ to declare a norm void. Discrepancies between the content of a norm
and its implementation may occur due to the government's inability to accurately
interpret the content of a legal norm, leading to practices that may infringe upon the
rights of citizens protected and guaranteed by the constitution. This becomes one of
the gateways for establishing legal standing in filing requests for judicial review at the
Constitutional Court. Here are some considerations of the Court in its decision
(Agustino, 2017):
1. A Regional Regulation (Perda) is a form of legislation with a hierarchy below
the Law. Therefore, the authority to review it rests solely with the Supreme
Court, as stipulated in Article 24A paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.
2. The considerations for annulling a Regional Regulation based on Law No. 23
of 2014 concerning Regional Government due to violations of public interest
and/or morality fall within the purview of the Supreme Court to set the
standards. Additionally, the Constitutional Court views the annulment of
District/City Regulations through gubernatorial decisions as incompatible
with the legislative regulation regime in Indonesia. This is because
District/City Regulations, as legal products in the form of regulations
(regeling), cannot be annulled by gubernatorial decisions, which are legal
products in the form of decisions (beschikking).
3. There is a potential for dualism in court decisions between the Administrative
Court (PTUN), which examines the legality of gubernatorial/ministerial
decisions, and the Supreme Court's review of Regional Regulations
concerning the same substance of the case but different legal products. The
Court considers this could lead to legal uncertainty, violating Article 28D
paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

ISSN (Print) 0854-6509 - ISSN (Online) 2549-4600

Sukardi, Dodi Jaya Wardana

268

LJIH 32 (2) September-2024, 263-276

However, in issuing its decisions, the Court must conduct an in-depth review and
analyze each test material from the content of a regulation and expert views from the
law to be tested. Constitutional Court Decision Number 137/PPU-XII/2015
concerning the authority to cancel regional regulations was not unanimously decided;
four Constitutional Judges expressed dissenting opinions for the following reasons
(Shimada & Bhima Yudhistira Adhinegara, 2016):
1. The authority of the Regional Head and the Regional People's Representative
Council (DPRD) to form Regional Regulations is an attributive authority
(attributie van wetgevingsbevoegheid) that can only be granted and established by
the 1945 Constitution and Law Number 23 of 2014 concerning Regional
Government. If the formation of Regional Regulations is considered
delegated legislation, then there has been a non-hierarchical transfer of
authority, bypassing Government Regulations, Presidential Regulations, and
Ministerial Regulations.
2. The President is the ultimate and final responsible party for government
administration and has the obligation to take any action against a legal product
of government administration that contradicts higher laws, public interest, and
morality.
3. The content of Regional Regulations includes matters of governmental affairs
which, according to the Regional Government Law, fall under the presidential
authority, the execution of which is carried out by state ministries.
In assessing the status of Article 251 of Law No. 23 of 2014 concerning Regional
Government, the Court should base its judgment on the understanding that the
authority of the Regional Head and the Regional People's Representative Council
(DPRD) to enact Regional Regulations is an attributive power, granted by the
Constitution and laws as stipulated in Article 18 paragraph (6) of the 1945 Constitution
and Article 236 of Law No. 23 of 2014 concerning Regional Government. It must be
recognized that Regional Regulations are not a delegation or transfer of authority from
laws, as this would violate the commonly known principle of delegatie van
wetgevingsbevoegheid, which is the transfer of authority to enact legislation from a
higher to a lower regulation.
Regarding the petition for review in case No. 137/PUU-XIII/2015, the
Constitutional Court opined that the provisions of Article 251 paragraphs (2) and (3)
of the Regional Government Law, besides deviating from the logic and structure of
the Indonesian legal state as mandated by Article 1 paragraph (3) of the 1945
Constitution, also negate the role and function of the Supreme Court as the authority
to review legislation below the law, particularly Regional Regulations of
Districts/Cities as affirmed in Article 24A paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.
Similarly, regarding the public interest and/or morality also used as a benchmark in
canceling regional regulations as contained in Article 251 paragraphs (2) and (3) of the

ISSN (Print) 0854-6509 - ISSN (Online) 2549-4600

Sukardi, Dodi Jaya Wardana

269

LJIH 32 (2) September-2024, 263-276

Regional Government Law, the Constitutional Court also views this as the domain of
the Supreme Court to establish such benchmarks, besides the provisions of higher
legislation because it is contained in laws, thus also serving as a touchstone by the
Supreme Court in adjudicating the review of regional regulations. Through these legal
considerations, the cancellation of District/City Regional Regulations through the
executive review mechanism contradicts the 1945 Constitution.
In the Constitutional Court decision No. 56/PUU-XIV/2016, through its legal
considerations, the Constitutional Court opined that the authority granted to the
Minister and Governor as representatives of the central government to cancel
District/City Regional Regulations had deviated from the logic and structure of
Indonesia as the state of law as asserted in Article 1 paragraph (3) of the 1945
Constitution and negated the role and function of the Supreme Court as the authority
to review legislation below the law as affirmed in Article 24A paragraph (1) of the 1945
Constitution. Similarly, regarding the public interest and/or morality also used as a
benchmark in canceling Regional Regulations contained in Article 251 paragraphs (2)
and (3) of the Regional Government Law, the Court views this also as the realm of the
Supreme Court to apply such benchmarks, besides the provisions of higher legislation,
because it is contained in laws, thus also serving as a touchstone by the Supreme Court
in adjudicating the review of regional regulations. Further, the cancellation of
District/City Regional Regulations by issuing a Governor's decision is not aligned with
the legislative regulation regime because aside from the Governor's decision not being
recognized as one type and hierarchy of legislation as stipulated in Article 7 paragraph
(1) and Article 8 of Law No. 12 of 2011, there has been a misconception if
District/City Regional Regulations, inherently in the form of regulations (regeling), are
canceled by a Decision (beschikking).
These legal considerations fundamentally pertain to the Constitutional Court
decision Number 137/PUU-XIII/2015, dated April 5, 2017, which the Court deemed
also applicable to decision MK No. 56/PUU-XIV/2016. Thus, the Court opined that
Article 251 paragraphs (1) and (4) of Law No. 23 of 2014, insofar as they pertain to
the phrase "Provincial Regulations and," are contrary to the 1945 Constitution.
Meanwhile, Article 251 paragraph (2) of Law No. 23 of 2014 concerning District/City
Regulations becomes moot because the Court has already considered and declared
them contrary to the 1945 Constitution in decision Number 137/PUU-XIII/2015.
Regarding Article 251 paragraph (7) of Law No. 23 of 2014, the Constitutional
Court found that since it pertains to Provincial Regulations which have been declared
contrary to the 1945 Constitution, the time frame for filing objections to the
cancellation of Provincial Regulations no later than 14 days after the cancellation
decision is received, becomes irrelevant. Therefore, the phrase "Provincial Regulations
and" found in Article 251 paragraph (7) of Law No. 23/2014 also contradicts the 1945
Constitution. Furthermore, paragraph (8) concerning "District/City Regulations" is

ISSN (Print) 0854-6509 - ISSN (Online) 2549-4600

Sukardi, Dodi Jaya Wardana

270

LJIH 32 (2) September-2024, 263-276

considered moot because it was declared contrary to the 1945 Constitution in Decision
137/PUU-XIII/2015, dated April 5, 2017.
Based on these legal considerations, the Constitutional Court, in its decision
decree, refused to accept the provisions about Regency/Mayoral Regulation and
District/Mayoral Regulations in Article 251 paragraphs (2) and (8) of Law No. 23 of
2014. Regarding the phrase "Provincial Regulations and" in Article 251 paragraphs (1)
and (4), and the phrase "Provincial Regulations and" in Article 251 paragraph (7), as
well as Article 251 paragraph (5) of Law Number 23 of 2014 concerning Regional
Government, these are declared contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of
Indonesia and have no binding legal force.
In line with the nature of the Constitutional Court decisions, as stated in the
Constitution, these decisions are final and binding. "Final" means no further legal
remedies are available, and "binding" means they apply generally. Ideally, decisions of
the Constitutional Court should be followed by legislative changes by the legislature as
legislative products; however, some decisions of the Constitutional Court are
implemented by the addressees of the decisions through regulatory processes, thus
without waiting for legislative changes, which can also adopt the decisions of the
Constitutional Court in the revision or creation of new legislation. Therefore, the
decisions of the Constitutional Court take effect immediately after being pronounced
in session .
Therefore, following the Constitutional Court Decision No. 137/PUUXIII/2015, pronounced during the Full Court session on Monday, August 20, 2016,
and Decision No. 56/PUU-XIV/2016, pronounced in an open Full Court session of
the Constitutional Court on Wednesday, June 14, 2017, the review of Regional
Regulations is now conducted through Judicial Review at the Supreme Court. With the
annulment of Article 251 of Law No. 23 of 2014, repressive supervision of Regional
Regulations through executive review is no longer feasible. The judicial institution, the
Supreme Court, carries out repressive supervision of Regional Regulations. Although
it is not new for the Supreme Court to review Regional Regulations, with the closing
of another avenue for such review, the Supreme Court becomes the sole authority for
canceling Regional Regulations.
Implications of the Constitutional Court Decision on the Supervision
Mechanism of Regional Regulations
The Constitutional Court, through Decisions Number 137/PUU-XIII/2015 and
Number 56/PUU-XIV/2016, has revoked the government's authority to cancel
Regional Regulations, positioning the Supreme Court as the only state institution that
can test Regional Regulations. This means there will be obstacles to monitoring the
regional regulations that have been enacted (Expost). It is essential to understand that
according to Article 1 paragraph (3) of Supreme Court Regulation Number 1 of 2011

ISSN (Print) 0854-6509 - ISSN (Online) 2549-4600

Sukardi, Dodi Jaya Wardana

271

LJIH 32 (2) September-2024, 263-276

concerning Material Testing Rights, it is stated that “The complainant is a group of
people or individuals who submit an objection to the Supreme Court over the
enactment of a regulation lower than the law,” which means the nature of the Supreme
Court in handling the testing of legislation below the law is passive, i.e., waiting for an
application from complainants objecting to the enforcement of a regulation lower than
the law. If there are many problematic Regional Regulations and no complaints are
filed with the Supreme Court, these regulations will continue to be effective, waiting
for a group of people or individuals to file an objection, thus hampering the oversight
of Regional Regulations because the Supreme Court is passive in waiting for cases
(Mulyani & Handity, 2020).
In Decision No. 56/PUU-XIV/2016, the Constitutional Court ruled that the
central government no longer has the authority to cancel regional regulations at the
provincial level. Decisions Number 137/PUU-XIII/2015 and Number 56/PUUXIV/2016 have brought something new; now, the Minister of Home Affairs and the
Governor have lost their authority to conduct judicial reviews at the regional level
(Shadiqin, 2020). With the removal of the authority of the Minister of Home Affairs
and the Governor as representatives of the central government to cancel Regional
Regulations after they are enacted, there is no longer dualism in the testing of Regional
Regulations; only the Supreme Court has that authority. This decision has indirectly
ended the long debate, so we are not confused about which institution is most entitled
to cancel Regional Regulations because, based on the legislative regime, the review
must be pursued through judicial review (Winata et al., 2018).
The implication is that there is legal certainty about which party has the authority
to cancel local legal products, commonly called "local laws." Given that regions have
the right to manage and regulate their own affairs, including the creation of regional
regulations tailored to their local needs, the dualism of testing authority is no longer
present. To maintain synchronization between the central and regional governments,
the remaining authority of the Minister of Home Affairs and the Governor is limited
to executive preview (Sedubun et al., 2019). It should be noted that the Minister and
Governor can still cancel draft Regional Regulations that have not yet been enacted so
that in the executive preview process (Armin et al., 2023), there is legal certainty and
not just an evaluation mechanism (Yuswanto & Arif, 2018). The executive preview
mechanism to be implemented by the Minister or Governor is carried out when
assigning a registration number to the draft Provincial or Regency/City Regulations,
which must be done no later than seven days after the draft regulation is received by
the Minister of Home Affairs or the Governor. Testing after the regulation is enacted
can now only be done in the Supreme Court, commonly referred to as judicial review
(Chng, 2024).
However, obtaining legal certainty does not mean that testing at the level of the
Supreme Court is without flaws. One such flaw is that the testing conducted by the

ISSN (Print) 0854-6509 - ISSN (Online) 2549-4600

Sukardi, Dodi Jaya Wardana

272

LJIH 32 (2) September-2024, 263-276

Supreme Court is only material in nature. This means the Court only evaluates whether
the Regional Regulation under review contradicts a higher regulation. This is in
accordance with the principle of lex specialis derogate le infriore, meaning a higher rule
overrides a lower one. The evaluation of whether a regulation was issued in the manner
prescribed by the applicable law, commonly referred to as the formal aspect, is not yet
considered.
The decision indirectly presents challenges for the Supreme Court and the
Ministry of Home Affairs, considering that removing this authority could hinder
investment programs due to Regional Regulations that conflict with higher regulations.
There is a concern for the Central Government regarding the production of Regional
Regulations in the regions, which could create disharmony between the Central and
Regional Governments, even though repressive authority still exists.
Unfortunately, if we look at the cases handled by the Supreme Court, the average
is still below one hundred, and in 2016, there were only 49 cases, including eight
involving Regional Regulations, while in 2016, the government canceled 3,143
Regional Regulations (Shadiqin, 2020). Thus, the potential for an increase in cases at
the Supreme Court is real. If we examine the provisions in Law No. 23 of 2014, there
are two types of supervision over Regional Regulations: preventive supervision
(preview), which is implemented through the evaluation mechanism of draft
regulations, and repressive supervision through canceling regulations (executive
review).
Concerning preventive supervision, as stipulated in Article 245 of Law No. 23 of
2014, there is an evaluation mechanism applied to draft regulations concerning
Regional Long-Term Development Plans (RPJPD), Regional Medium-Term
Development Plans (RPJMD), Regional Budgets (APBD), changes to APBD,
accountability of APBD implementation, local taxes, local retributions, and regional
spatial planning. These draft regulations must first be evaluated by the Minister of
Home Affairs or the Governor according to their authority before being enacted by
the Regional Head (Nugroho et al., 2020).
At a more technical regulatory level, the Minister of Home Affairs has issued
Regulation Number 80 of 2015 concerning the Formation of Regional Legal Products.
In addition to regulations concerning the evaluation of regional regulations, this
Ministerial Regulation also covers the facilitation of draft regulations as a form of
supervision for development purposes. According to the provisions of Articles 87 and
88 of Ministerial Regulation Number 80 of 2015, all regional regulations formed by
Regional Governments that have not been evaluated must first be facilitated.
Before the Constitutional Court Decisions Number 137/PUU-XIII/2015 and
56/PUU-XIV/2016, Law No. 23 of 2014 also regulated repressive supervision
(executive review) as evidenced by the provisions of Article 251. According to Article
251, in practice, this is realized through the mechanism of canceling regional

ISSN (Print) 0854-6509 - ISSN (Online) 2549-4600

Sukardi, Dodi Jaya Wardana

273

LJIH 32 (2) September-2024, 263-276

regulations. If a regional regulation formed by a Provincial Government is deemed to
contradict higher statutory regulations, public interest, and/or decency, then the
Minister of Home Affairs can cancel the regulation by issuing a Decision (Efendi, 2017;
Gandhi, 2021; Novandra, 2019). Similarly, for Regency/City regulations, if the content
of the regulation is judged to conflict with higher statutory regulations, public interest,
and/or decency, then the Governor, as the representative of the Central Government,
is authorized to cancel the Regency/City regulation by issuing a Governor’s Decision.
The provisions also state that if the Governor does not cancel a Regency/City
regulation that contradicts higher statutory regulations, public interest, and/or
decency, then the Minister can assume the authority to cancel the Regency/City
regulation (Iskandar & Budiaman, 2022).
CONCLUSION
The authority to cancel regional regulations has now been fully returned to the
Supreme Court through Constitutional Court Decision No. 137/PUU-XIII/2015
concerning the Material Test of Law 23 of 2014 concerning Regional Government.
The Court argued that the Minister and governor, as representatives of the Central
Government in cancelling regional regulations, contradicted higher statutory
provisions, deviating from the logic and framework of the law of Indonesia.
Constitutional Court Decision No. 137/PUU-XII/2015 implies that Article 251 of
Law No. 23 of 2014 no longer grants the Minister and/or Governor the authority to
cancel Regency/City regulations. Meanwhile, in Constitutional Court Decision No.
56/PUU-XIV/2016, the Court ruled that the central government no longer has the
authority to cancel regional regulations at the provincial level. Constitutional Court
Decisions No. 137/PUU-XIII/2015 and No. 56/PUU-XIV/2016 have brought about
a new situation where the Minister of Home Affairs and governors have lost their
authority to conduct judicial reviews of regulations at the regional level. With the
removal of this authority from the Minister of Home Affairs and governors as
representatives of the central government in cancelling regional regulations, there is no
longer a dualism in testing regional regulations, leaving only the Supreme Court with
this authority, known as judicial review, according to Article 24A paragraph (1) of the
1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.

REFERENCES
Agustino, L. (2017). Pembatalan 3.143 Peraturan Daerah: Satu Analisis Singkat.
CosmoGov, 3(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.24198/cosmogov.v3i1.12405
Al-Fatih, S. (2018). Model Pengujian Peraturan Perundang-Undangan Satu Atap
Melalui Mahkamah Konstitusi. Jurnal Ilmiah Hukum LEGALITY, 25(2), 247.

ISSN (Print) 0854-6509 - ISSN (Online) 2549-4600

Sukardi, Dodi Jaya Wardana

274

LJIH 32 (2) September-2024, 263-276

https://doi.org/10.22219/jihl.v25i2.6005
Al-Fatih, S. (2023). Perkembangan Metode Penelitian Hukum di Indonesia - Sholahuddin AlFatih
Google
Buku
(1st
ed.,
Vol.
1).
UMM
Press.
https://books.google.co.id/books/about/Perkembangan_Metode_Penelitian_
Hukum_di.html?id=EObiEAAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y
Al Fatih, S., & Nur, A. I. (2023). Does the Constitutional Court on Local Election
Responsive Decisions? Journal of Human Rights, Culture and Legal System, 3(3), 569–
596. https://doi.org/10.53955/jhcls.v3i3.74
Alfath, T. P., Salman, R., & Sukardi, S. (2020). Derivasi Konsep Negara Kepulauan
Dalam Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945. Bina
Hukum Lingkungan, 4(2), 216. https://doi.org/10.24970/bhl.v4i2.101
Armin, U., Kosariza, K., & Ansorullah, A. (2023). Analisis pengawasan peraturan
daerah berdasarkan undang-undang tentang pemerintahan daerah. Limbago:
Journal
of
Constitutional
Law,
3(2),
261–279.
https://doi.org/10.22437/limbago.v3i2.24215
Chng, K. (2024). Re-examining judicial review of delegated legislation. Legal Studies,
44(1), 81–98. https://doi.org/10.1017/lst.2023.7
Efendi, E. (2017). Hak Uji Materi Pemerintah Terhadap Peraturan Daerah (Kajian
Terhadap Kewenangan Pemerintah Pusat Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi
Nomor 137/PUU-XIII/2015). Asy-Syir’ah: Jurnal Ilmu Syari’ah Dan Hukum, 51(1),
131–147. https://doi.org/10.14421/ajish.v51i1.324
Gandhi, D. (2021). Kewenangan pembatalan peraturan daerah. JHR (Jurnal Hukum
Replik), 4(2), 25–34. https://doi.org/10.31000/jhr.v4i2.11
Gunawan, B. A. (2019). Tantangan Penjabaran Prinsip-prinsip Demokrasi dalam
Pembentukan Peraturan Daerah. Al-Azhar Islamic Law Review, 1(2), 112–126.
https://doi.org/10.37146/ailrev.v1i2.20
Haruni, C. W. (2022). Constitutionality of Monitoring and Evaluation of Regional
Regulation Drafts and Regional Regulations by Regional Representative Council.
Legality:
Jurnal
Ilmiah
Hukum,
30(1),
103–115.
https://doi.org/10.22219/ljih.v30i1.20532
Iskandar, T., & Budiaman, H. (2022). Executive Review Dan Judicial Review Terhadap
Peraturan Daerah Sebagai Implementasi Unsur-Unsur Negara Hukum. Jurnal
Ilmiah Galuh Justisi, 10(1), 102. https://doi.org/10.25157/justisi.v10i1.7235
Jaya, A. T. D., Ruslan, A., & Riza, M. (2021). Anomali Pembatalan Peraturan Daerah:
Ratio Legis Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi. Halu Oleo Law Review, 5(1), 1–14.
Kansil, C. S. T., & Candra, D. V. (2024). Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Terkait Usia
Calon Presiden dan Calon Wakil Presiden. UNES Law Review, 6(4), 10263–10273.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.31933/unesrev.v6i4.2000
Mulyani, T., & Handity, B. (2020). Implikasi Pasca Pencabutan Kewenangan
Pemerintah Untuk Membatalkan Peraturan Daerah. ADIL: Indonesia Jurnal, 2(2),

ISSN (Print) 0854-6509 - ISSN (Online) 2549-4600

Sukardi, Dodi Jaya Wardana

275

LJIH 32 (2) September-2024, 263-276

1–11. https://jurnal.unw.ac.id/index.php/AIJ/article/view/620
Muslim, S., Hadiyantina, S., Mundzir, H., & Ayub, Z. A. (2023). The Meaning of
“Strength Executive" in the Constitutional Court Decision for the Execution of
Fiduciary Securities. Legality: Jurnal Ilmiah Hukum, 31(1), 1–20.
https://doi.org/10.22219/ljih.v31i1.23244
Negara, T. A. S. (2023). Normative Legal Research in Indonesia: Its Originis and
Approaches. Audito Comparative Law Journal (ACLJ), 4(1), 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.22219/aclj.v4i1.24855
Novandra, R. (2019). Pengawasan Peraturan Daerah Setelah Putusan Mahkamah
Konstitusi Nomor 137/PUU-XIII/2015 dan 56/PUU-XIV/2016. Rechtidee,
14(2), 186–206. https://doi.org/10.21107/ri.v14i2.4764
Nugroho, R. D., Wibowo, G. D. H., & Purnomo, C. E. (2020). Tinjauan Terhadap
Pertimbangan Hukum Dalam Pembatalan Kewenangan Menteri Dan Gubernur
Di Daerah Berkaitan Dengan Executive Review Pada Putusan No. 137/PuuXiii/2015 Dan No. 56/Puu-Xiv/2016. Jurnal Dinamika Sosial Budaya, 22(1), 80.
https://doi.org/10.26623/jdsb.v22i2.2469
Prayitno, S. (2017). Mekanisme Pembatalan Peraturan Daerah Dan Akibat Hukumnya
Berdasarkan Asas Lex Superiori Derogat Legi Inferiori. Jurnal Surya Kencana Satu:
Dinamika
Masalah
Hukum
Dan
Keadilan,
8(2),
109–120.
https://doi.org/10.32493/jdmhkdmhk.v8i2.698
Rismana, D., & Hariyanto, H. (2021). Perspektif Teori Sistem Hukum Dalam
Kebijakan Vaksinasi di Tengah Pandemi Covid-19. Jurnal IUS Kajian Hukum Dan
Keadilan, 9(3), 591–606. https://doi.org/10.29303/IUS.V9I3.951
Sedubun, V. J., Saptenno, M. J., Pietersz, J. J., & Sisinaru, S. Y. (2019). Pembatalan
Peraturan Daerah dan Akibat Hukumnya Menurut Undang-Undang Nomor 23
Tahun 2014 Tentang Pemerintahan Daerah. Sasi, 25(2), 107.
https://doi.org/10.47268/sasi.v25i2.216
Shadiqin, M. T. (2020). Implikasi Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor Nomor
137/PUU- XIII/2015 dan No . 56/PUU-XIV/2016 Terhadap Mekanisme
Pengawasan Perda. Al-Hakam Islamic Law & Contemporary Issues, 1(1), 19–36.
Shimada, Y., & Bhima Yudhistira Adhinegara, D. (2016). PemerintaH pemerintahan
Refleksi pada Era Reformasi dan DaeraH (Issue 0).
Sihombing, E. N. (2017). Perkembangan Kewenangan Pembatalan Peraturan Daerah
Dan
Peraturan
Kepala
Daerah.
Jurnal
Yudisial,
10(2),
217.
https://doi.org/10.29123/jy.v10i2.147
Sukma, N. M. (2017). Analisis Yuridis Pembatalan Perda Oleh Menteri Dalam Negeri.
Jurnal Ilmiah Galuh Justisi, 5(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.25157/jigj.v5i1.150
Sukmariningsih, R. M. (2017). Overlapping authority on the cancellation of local
regulation (An erroneous logic of local autonomy). Hasanuddin Law Review, 3(2),
191–197. https://doi.org/10.20956/halrev.v3i2.1196

ISSN (Print) 0854-6509 - ISSN (Online) 2549-4600

Sukardi, Dodi Jaya Wardana

276

LJIH 32 (2) September-2024, 263-276

Trinanda, D. (2022). Pembatalan Peraturan Kepala Daerah: Studi Permendagri Nomor
120 Tahun 2018. Ijtihad, 38(1).
Wardana, D. J., Sukardi, & Salman, R. (2023). Public Participation in the Law-Making
Process
in
Indonesia.
Jurnal
Media
Hukum,
30(1),
66–77.
https://doi.org/10.18196/JMH.V30I1.14813
Wijayanto, D. E. (2014). Hubungan Kepala Desa Dengan Badan Permusyawaratan
Desa Dalam Pembentukan Peraturan Desa. Jurnal Independent, 2(1), 40.
https://doi.org/10.30736/ji.v2i1.17
Winata, M. R., Putri, M. C., & Aditya, Z. F. (2018). Legal Historis Kewenangan
Pengujian Dan Pembatalan Peraturan Daerah Serta Implikasinya Terhadap
Kemudahan Berusaha. Jurnal Rechts Vinding: Media Pembinaan Hukum Nasional,
7(3), 335. https://doi.org/10.33331/rechtsvinding.v7i3.266
Yuswanto, Y., & Arif, M. Y. Al. (2018). Diskursus Pembatalan Peraturan Daerah Pasca
Putusan MK No. 137/PUU-XIII/2015 (The Discourse of Cancellation Local
Regulation Following the Constitutional Court Decision No. 137/PUUXIII/2015 and No. 56/PUU-XIV/2016). Jurnal Konstitusi, 15(4), 710–731.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1542

ISSN (Print) 0854-6509 - ISSN (Online) 2549-4600