Article Sidebar

Submitted
March 3, 2025
Published
March 3, 2025
Download
pdf
Statistic
Read Counter : 98 Download : 111

Main Article Content

Abstract

The government-led move of the capital from Jakarta to Nusantara has sparked substantial public debate, encompassing legal drafting, institutional issues, and the construction and relocation process. This study aimed to assess the potential corruption risk associated with the drafting and content of Law Number 21 of 2023, which modifies Law Number 3 of 2022 on the State Capital (IKN), utilizing the Corruption Risk Assessment framework. The research identified three significant deficiencies: First, the formulation of the IKN Law did not adhere to the CRA's administrative standards, particularly concerning the sub-criteria of accessibility and openness, due to the absence of meaningful participation. Second, the Ibu Kota Nusantara Authority (IKN Authority) needed to effectively differentiate between the functions of planning, development, and relocation of the capital and the responsibilities of the Special Regional Government of IKN. Third, the IKN Law needed to define the special authorities granted to the IKN Authority. This situation enables the government to obtain additional powers as special authority for the IKN Authority without oversight, potentially leading to the misuse of power in favor of certain parties. The research suggests that the IKN should separate its roles as a project implementer from its government function. According to Article 18 of the 1945 Constitution, the treatment of government implementation should be consistent with that of other local governments. Also, the government must implement substantial limitations in the State Capital Relocation Law concerning its exclusive authority. The House of Representatives must authorize further authority if necessary.
Keywords: IKN, Corruption Risk Assessment, Law Formulation

Article Details

References

  1. Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2018). Collaborative platforms as a governance strategy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(1), 16–32. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mux030
  2. Arundel, A., Bloch, C., & Ferguson, B. (2019). Advancing innovation in the public sector: Aligning innovation measurement with policy goals. Research Policy, 48(3), 789–798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.12.001
  3. Caiden, G. E. (1988). Toward a General Theory of Official Corruption. Asian Journal of Public Administration, 10(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/02598272.1988.10800195
  4. Cinar, E., Trott, P., & Simms, C. (2019). A systematic review of barriers to public sector innovation process. Public Management Review, 21(2), 264–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2018.1473477
  5. Cinar, E., Trott, P., & Simms, C. (2021). An international exploration of barriers and tactics in the public sector innovation process. Public Management Review, 23(3), 326–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1668470
  6. Direktorat Litbang KPK. (2020). Metode CRA Dalam Pencegahan Korupsi Melalui Perbaikan Regulasi - Pembelajaran dari Korea Selatan (Issue Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi). https://www.kpk.go.id/images/pdf/Pedoman_CRA_Unduh.pdf
  7. Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S. (2012). An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur011
  8. European Commission. (2013). European Public Sector Innovation Scoreboard 2013 – A Pilot Exercise. https://doi.org/10.2796/27492
  9. Hartley, J. (2005). Innovation in governance and public services: Past and present. Public Money and Management, 25(1), 27–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9302.2005.00447.x
  10. Peraturan Pemerintah Republik Indonesia Nomor 74 Tahun 2011 tentang Tata Cara Pelaksanaan Hak dan Pemenuhan Kewajiban Perpajakan, Pub. L. No. PP No. 74 Tahun 2011 (2011). https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/5207/pp-no-74-tahun-2011
  11. Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 73P/HUM/2013, Pub. L. No. 73P/HUM/2013 (2013). https://jdih-new.kemenkeu.go.id/api/download/d0b48502-0e26-405b-9a1b-eba15dcd6f02/2.%2073_P_HUM_2013.pdf
  12. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi RI No. 91/PUU-XVIII/2020, Pub. L. No. Putusan MKRI No. 91/PUU-XVIII/2020 (2020). https://jdih.maritim.go.id/cfind/source/files/putusan/putusan_mkri_8240_1637822490.pdf
  13. ?andor, S. D. (2018). Measuring public sector innovation. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 14(54E), 125–137. https://doi.org/10.24193/tras.54E.8
  14. Undang¬-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia 1945, Pub. L. No. UUD Negara Republik Indonesia 1945 (1945). https://jdih.bapeten.go.id/unggah/dokumen/peraturan/4-full.pdf
  15. Undang-Undang Nomor 3 Tahun 2022 tentang Ibu Kota Negara, Pub. L. No. UU No.3 Tahun 2022 (2022). https://jdih.maritim.go.id/cfind/source/files/uu/uu-no-3-2022/uu-nomor-3-tahun-2022.pdf
  16. Undang-Undang Nomor 12 Tahun 2011 tentang Pembentukan Peraturan Perundang-Undangan, Pub. L. No. UU 12 Tahun 2011 (2011). https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/39188/uu-no-12-tahun-2011
  17. Undang-Undang Nomor 21 Tahun 2023 tentang Perubahan atas Undang-Undang Nomor 3 Tahun 2022 tentang Ibu Kota Negara, Pub. L. No. UU No.21 Tahun 2023 (2021). https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/269494/uu-no-21-tahun-2023
  18. Undang-Undang Nomor 28 Tahun 2007 tentang Perubahan Ketiga atas Undang-Undang Nomor 6 Tahun 1983 tentang Ketentuan Umum dan Tata Cara Perpajakan, Pub. L. No. UU N0. 28 Tahun 2007 (2007). https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/39916/uu-no-28-tahun-2007