The issuance of Law No. 6 of 2014 concerning the village has become a strong driving force for the government for issuing a series of its derivative rules. From the writer’s view, derivative rules concerning the village are more than other rules outside the rules concerning the village. While viewed from their chronological publication, the derivative rules were published in chronological span that is relatively not too long, namely not more than two years since Law No. 6 was passed in January 2014.
In the period of 2014-2015 there have been three government regulations published, thirteen ministerial-level regulations and one three ministerial decree concerning the village. For government-level regulations, there has been one change. Government Regulation No. 43 Year 2014 concerning the village has been converted into Regulation No. 47 Year 2015 concerning the village. In the meantime, Regulation No. 60 Year 2014 on the village fund so far has not been shown to be altered.
Meanwhile, of the 13 ministerial-level regulations, three rules were issued by the finance ministry, four by the interior ministry, and six by the ministry of rural development of disadvantaged areas and transmigration.
Chronologically, the ministerial decree that was the earliest issued originated from the finance ministry. On December 24, 2014 PMK No. 241 deals with the implementation and accountability of fund transfers to the regions and villages and PMK No. 250 is concerned with the allocation of funds transfer and rural areas. Still in the same month, on 31 December 2014 the interior minister signed PERMENDAGRI No. 111 on village regulations, PERMENDAGRI No. 112 on head of village elections, PERMENDAGRI No. 113 on village finance and PERMENDAGRI No. 114 on rural development.
Subsequently, in January-March village ministry published six ministerial regulations, namely PERMENDESA No. 1 on guidelines for village authority based on the origin and scale of the village, PERMENDESA No. 2 on the guidelines of the discipline and decision-making mechanisms of village meetings, PERMENDESA No. 3 on the assistance of the village. After that, PERMENDESA No. 4 on the establishment and dissolution BUMDES passed in February 2015, PERMENDESA No. 5 on the priority use of village funds. Finally, in March came PERMENDESA No. 6 on the organization and governance of Kemendesa.
After that, in May 2015, the finance minister issued a PMK No. 93 on the procedures for the allocation, distribution, controlling and evaluation of village funds. Recently, last September the ministry of finance, ministry of village and the interior ministry published the Joint Decree (SKB) on the acceleration of the distribution, management and use of village funds in 2015.
Pragmatically, the publication of a series of rules this is certainly a positive thing. The entire community can position it as one of the government’s serious efforts in building the village. But on the other hand, as a rule technocratically compiled, it has already been a provision if the rules have its own weaknesses.
As we know, today there are three ministries given the mandate to take care of the village, as mentioned above. Although, theoretically, the division of labor has been set out clearly, at the level of practice it can not be used as a guarantee that there will not be a gap of understanding between the three ministries.
Take the village finances as an example.
Regarding this village finance, three ministers issued their own rules. The finance minister goes through the PMK No. 93 of 2015 regarding the procedure for the allocation, distribution, monitoring and evaluation of village funds, then the interior minister through PERMENDAGRI No. 113 2014 of village finances and minister of rural and disadvantaged areas through PERMENDESA No. 5 of 2015 on priorities for the use of village funds.
With various regulations owned by each ministry, there should no longer be urgent issues regarding village finance, especially related to the transfer of money from the government to the village.
But, the reality does not go that way. In this context, the publication of the Joint Decree (SKB) of the three ministers appears to be obvious example of that gap. If only the rules had been made on a deep mutual understanding between the ministries, the potential problems should have been predicted and anticipated by a series of regulations made by each ministry.
In a wider context, suppose it is brought into relation of provinces and districts, it will have an impact on the loopholes of deeper and larger understanding. Of course, the understanding gap potentially can give refraction and deviation of understanding over the rules by the district administration itself.
In a short term, maybe a gap between the levels of government can still be resolved by issuing a a three-minister joint decree. However, in a long-term context no one can guarantee this will be resolved and the problem with the same mode will not be repeated.
It must be noticed well, that this gap is only one example of the problems arising after the Village Act has been legalized for approximately two years. It is possible that another problem could come to the surface, just waiting for the right moment alone. But hopefully it does not necessarily become a reality. We hope the problem of late distribution of money to the village is not a trigger of a time bomb on the village. Instead, we can take it as a simple reminder for all of us.
Ultimately, a series of derivatives regulations on village appearing in this short time period is expected to be an input for the government to undertake introspection and deep and thorough reflection on the practice of taking care of the village over the years. Decisiveness, intelligence and wisdom as well as the cohesiveness of state leaders are the key factors in this process. This is an important test of the government of the republic.