Lompat ke konten Lompat ke sidebar Lompat ke footer

9 Fitra's Notes to the Implementation of the Village Law

download image
A number of Community Organizers (COs) from 33 villages gathered in Yogyakarta, on 16-18 December 2019. Exploring problems, achievements, and solutions to CO's work in villages and areas became the core of the discussion on village assistance evaluation meetings for the past year.

Areas classified as piloting locations for strengthening FITRA National Secretariat villages include: Bima and North Lombok Regencies, NTB Province; Pangkep and Bantaeng Regencies, South Sulawesi Province; Pemalang, Brebes, and Pekalongan Regencies, Central Java Province; Trenggalek Regency, Lumajang, Bondowoso, East Java Province; and West Aceh District, Aceh Province.

In addition to the achievement of activities in the form of stories of change, this discussion institution also created a reflection on the five years of implementation of Law no. 6 of 2014 Village discourse. Although the Government has disbursed the Village Fund budget from the APBN reaching Rp. 257.7 Trillion throughout 2015-2019, but the journey to this day is still considered to have set aside problems. Some of the issues include:

  1. Village Budget Transparency Not yet Qualified. The village website & billboards of APBDesa are less informative and have not been used as material for village planning and budgeting as well as media for citizen control over village budget implementation.
  2. Regency/City reluctance to issue Perbup/Perwali regarding the 'List of Village Authorities'. Of the 74,957 villages, only about 20 percent have published the Perbup on the List of Village Authorities.
  3. Narrow Fiscal Discretion and Village Innovation. Many Perbup/Perwali concerning the Use of Village Budgets (DD and ADD) have been plotted by the Regional Government and many programs have been entrusted with no budget from the Regional Government.
  4. Disharmony of Village Financial Management Regulations, for example, Permendesa 16/2018 regarding Priorities for Use of Village Funds 2019 is not in sync with Permendagri No. 20/2018 regarding Village Financial Management related to the nomenclature of Fields, Sub-Sectors, and Activities, so that it has the potential to be considered irregularities during audits;
  5. The complexity of preparing reports on the use of village budgets, whether sourced from central or local transfers (Village Funds, Village Fund Allocations, Revenue Sharing and Regional Levies, etc.).
  6. The number of Village-Owned Enterprises (BUMDes) is stalled but still receives capital participation from the Village Budget. There were 1,670 of the 2,188 BUMDes that did not take place, but still received budget disbursement from the APBDesa.
  7. Weak Social Accountability in the Village. Policies at the village level are controlled by a handful of people who are elites at the village level. Usually it is people close to the village head or BPD who are pro to the village head. Meanwhile, the position of the villagers is really weak, passive, and they do not have the courage to exercise control over development in the village.
  8. High Corruption Village Budget. The problem arose from the selection of village heads who still used money politics, so that the village heads had an orientation to return their political capital. In addition, the weak supervision carried out by villagers, BPD, inspectorate, and law enforcement officials (APH). Until 2018, there were 1,371 village fund case reports, of which 252 DD Corruption Cases had been decided, and involved 214 Village Head Suspects. Source: Task Force DD, ICW, and the Indonesian Attorney General's Office.
  9. Weak BPD function. The Village Consultative Body has three functions, namely drafting Village Regulations with the Village Head, carrying out the absorption of aspirations and complaints, and controlling the performance of the Village Head. The function of the BPD in many villages has been blunted, the reason being that capacity building has never been given. In fact, their work tends to be 'overstepped' by Law Enforcement Officials in carrying out supervision of the APBDesa implementation.

To that end, FITRA National Secretariat proposes:
  1. Encouraging more substantive village transparency, by issuing more detailed APBDesa and realization of APBDesa;
  2. Encouraging the Ministry of Village/Provincial Government to urge Districts/Cities to issue Perbup/Perwali List of Village Authorities;
  3. Expanding the Village Fiscal Space and saving on event interventions from the Village Supra;
  4. Harmonization of regulations between ministries in charge of villages;
  5. Simplification of the Village Budget Usage Report, if able, the Village only makes one report, namely the use of the Village Budget, even though the budget is sourced from the Village Fund, Village Fund Allocation, Revenue Sharing for Regional Taxes and Levies, Provincial/District/City Financial Assistance, etc.
  6. Provide intensive assistance to BUMDes that have opportunities and close and punish fake BUMDes;
  7. Strengthening the duties of the BPD and community groups in preventing corruption in the village budget through supervision from the Inspectorate;
  8. Enforcement of cases of corruption in the Village Budget by Law Enforcement Officials (APH);
  9. Develop social accountability at the village level through the Community Complaints Post controlled by the BPD.

Signed:
Misbah Hasan, Secretary General of FITRA (082211713249)
Badiul Hadi, FITRA National Secretariat Research Manager (0853 2599 0822)
  • Mayadina RM, FITRA Central Java (081228173448)
  • Dakelan, FITRA East Java (081332025450)
  • Ramli, FITRA NTB Coordinator (085338811110)
  • Rahmat/Masita, YASMIB, South Sulawesi (085397156862)
  • M. Qadafi, SOLUD, Bima (08123666015)
  • Amel, MATA, Aceh (082360746255)
download image