Foundational Principles
The process for dismissing a regional head in Indonesia is built upon a delicate balance between two core constitutional principles. Understanding this tension is key to comprehending the entire legal structure.
Regional Autonomy
Based on Article 18 of the 1945 Constitution, regions are granted the authority to manage their own governmental affairs. Regional heads are directly elected, giving them a strong democratic mandate from the people.
Unitary State Principle
Autonomy is not absolute. It is exercised within the framework of the Unitary State of Indonesia. This gives the central government supervisory power, including the authority to dismiss a regional head to ensure national cohesion and adherence to law.
Key Legislation: Law No. 23 of 2014
This law (UU Pemda) is the primary statute governing regional government. It replaced older laws to create a hybrid accountability model. While the process can be initiated politically by the local legislature (DPRD), it requires mandatory judicial review by the Supreme Court, transforming dismissal from a purely political act into a legal one.
What Are the Grounds for Dismissal?
Law No. 23 of 2014 outlines two distinct categories of reasons for removing a regional head from office. Click on each card to learn more.
Objective Circumstances ▶
Death: The term ends upon death.
Resignation: Upon personal request.
End of Term: The official term of office expires.
Permanent Incapacity: Unable to perform duties for 6 consecutive months.
Dismissal for Violations (Impeachment) ▶
Violation of Oath: Failing to uphold the Constitution and laws.
Failure to Perform Obligations: Significant non-compliance or dereliction of duty.
Violation of Prohibitions: Engaging in corruption, abuse of authority, etc.
Commission of 'Reprehensible Acts': Acts violating prevailing religious, moral, or customary norms. Case law (e.g., Regent of Garut) has established that private actions with public impact can fall under this category.
Use of Fraudulent Documents: Using falsified documents for candidacy.
Three Pathways to Dismissal
The law establishes three distinct procedural mechanisms for dismissing a regional head for cause. Select a pathway below to see a visual step-by-step guide.
1. DPRD Investigation
Local legislature (DPRD) investigates alleged violation via Right of Inquiry.
2. DPRD Plenary Vote
A vote is held to state an opinion. Requires 3/4 attendance and 2/3 approval.
3. Supreme Court Review
DPRD's opinion is submitted to the Supreme Court, which has 30 days to issue a final, binding legal decision.
4. Dismissal Proposal
IF the Supreme Court agrees, DPRD proposes dismissal to the President/Minister.
5. Final Decree
President/Minister issues the formal dismissal decree within 30 days.
Comparative Analysis
This chart visually compares the key attributes of the three dismissal mechanisms.
Key Legal Tensions & Implications
The legal framework, while sophisticated, contains inherent conflicts and raises fundamental questions about democracy and accountability in Indonesia.
Political vs. Legal Process
The Supreme Court acts as a crucial legal gatekeeper. It can reject a politically-motivated impeachment on procedural grounds alone, as seen in the case of the Regent of Jember. This reinforces that political will is not enough; strict adherence to legal procedure is mandatory.
Conflict of Authority
A single act by a regional head can trigger all three dismissal mechanisms simultaneously (criminal, DPRD-led, and government-led). This creates a 'race between institutions' with the potential for conflicting outcomes (e.g., impeachment is approved but the official is acquitted in criminal court), leading to legal uncertainty.
Democratic Legitimacy vs. Juridical Accountability
A core dilemma persists: can a few judges and a central government official override the will of thousands or millions of voters? One view sees this as a 'democratic deficit,' re-centralizing power. The counterargument is that a democratic mandate is not a license for illegality; it is conditioned on adherence to the rule of law. This tension remains a central, unresolved debate in Indonesian constitutional law.