As we know, the regional budget also deals with the management of regional financial resources, expenditures, priorities and measuring instruments. By only focusing on the DPRD budget, the regulation on regional finance ignores many important dimensions in budgeting in the Regency/City. One of them is the amount of spending allocation to fulfill the basic rights and needs of citizens; health, education, social security, access to clean water and so on.
Our constitution has indeed stipulated that 20 percent of the total APBN spending, which should also apply to regional budgets, be allocated to the education sector. For the fact that the constitutional mandate has not been implemented, we can find many explanations. However, at least it can be considered a stepping stone towards a better budget policy.
What about the allocation for other basic rights and needs? So far there are no clear rules about it so that spending to fulfill basic rights is very limited. Ironically, spending on government officials is much greater than spending to fulfill the basic rights and needs of citizens.
In the context that I mentioned at the beginning of this article, making rules about DPRD finances is not wrong, especially if we take into account the tendency of budget misuse by DPRD members. Various cases show that such misappropriation stems from non-compliance with PP 110/2000 concerning the Financial Position of the Regional People's Representative Council (DPRD).
Uniquely, after PP 110 was revoked by the Supreme Court in 2002, the replacement regulation was not immediately enacted so that the reference for DPRD financial matters refers to the Circular of the Minister of Home Affairs regarding severance pay for DPRD members or continues to refer to PP 110. Replacement for PP 110 Two years after PP 110 was revoked, PP 24 was enacted on August 28, 2004.
This means that three months after being enacted, PP 24 must be enforced in the DPRD in all provinces, districts/cities. Similar to PP 110, the basis for making PP 24 on the Protocol and Financial Position of the Leaders and Members of the People's Representative Council is Law No. 22 of 1999. However, it should be noted that at the time PP 24 was enacted, Law 22/1999 had been replaced by Law 32/2004 on Regional Government.
As a result, several fundamental matters in PP 24 are no longer in accordance with higher laws and regulations. With that in mind, this note was made to examine important parts of PP 24 that need to be changed or amended. At first glance, PP 24 looks clearer than PP 110. Many things are regulated in PP 24. However, if we look further, PP 24 seems to legitimize corruption patterns that have occurred in the last 2-3 years. One example that we can see is the absence of regulation of retirement funds in PP 110. But this is clearly regulated in PP 24 of 2004. In any case, the birth of PP 24 of 2004 is highly anticipated by DPRD members. How could it not be? New DPRD members certainly do not want to deal with legal issues because they are considered not to have implemented existing regulations. The public also wants to see how serious the lawmakers are in regulating state finances (APBD).
With the PP, the public can assess whether the government has the desire to build a commitment to allocate a large enough budget for the public. With the reflection of the budget given to council members according to the PP, we can calculate whether the allocation for the council is appropriate or not. What's wrong with PP 24? The emergence of this new regulation is not as perfect as we expected. There are still some oddities and 'holes' here and there. In general, the oddities of this regulation can be divided into two, namely substantial issues and
procedural.
Some substantial irregularities found in the PP include, first, the indicator of representation money used to determine the salary of members of the Council is an executive official of the same level (Regent/Mayor/Governor). Whereas so far the basic salary of executive officials has been very diverse / there is no general benchmark. For example, in the 2004 APBD, several regencies and cities in Yogya, the basic salary of the Regent of Kulon Progo was Rp 28,665,000/year, the basic salary of the Mayor of Yogya was Rp 46,800,000/year, even the basic salary of the Regent of Bantul was not listed in the APBD. The use of indicators not based on the amount of public spending in the APBD will be dangerous because in fact the breath of the APBD is as much as possible for the prosperity of the people, not the welfare of officials.
Second, related to the income of council members, PP 24 of 2004 regulates council income in more detail according to their workload than PP 110 of 2000. Unfortunately, the PP cannot distinguish which council members are actively carrying out their performance and which are not. For example, to be more objective, performance is (also) measured from input or written notes as a position paper for each council member in responding to the community issues discussed. This position paper can also be used as a tool for constituents to measure the performance of their elected council members. So council members who only come, sit and remain silent will be seen and have a good assessment.
bad. This assessment will have an impact on the remuneration given. Third, Welfare allowance is a fairly large component that will be received by members of the Council. Welfare allowances include housing allowances, health allowances, official vehicles, official uniforms, condolence money, etc. Without any limits that can be used for this allowance, it is likely that the APBD funds will be sucked into this post. Fourth, the Council member package money in PP 24, namely money received according to the presence of Council members when attending meetings is 'only' 10%. This percentage is smaller than the percentage stated in PP 110, which is a maximum of 25%.
As a result, it is very likely that members of the Council will be absent from the meeting. Fifth, the absence of regulations on cash flow for the APBD in PP 24 will be very risky in the management of council finances. The experience of the case in the DIY Provincial DPRD in 2004, where travel funds and operational support were mostly used by old Council members, resulted in new council members being unable to use the funds because they had run out or only a little was left. Substantial problems in PP 24 are still complemented by procedural problems.
In Article 29 paragraph (2) of PP 24 of 2004, the Minister of Home Affairs and the Governor are given authority to cancel Regional Regulations on the financial position of the Council. This is clearly contrary to MPR Decree Number III of 2000 which gives authority to the Supreme Court to conduct judicial review of laws and regulations under the Law. Based on these reasons, this PP needs to be reviewed. Moreover, this PP will soon be used by provincial, district and city DPRD throughout Indonesia to create the financial composition of each Council.
English 
Bahasa Indonesia