Implementasi hak inisiatif DPRD Kabupaten Wonogiri periode 2004-2009

Oleh :
Angga Sulistyo Pamungkas - - Fak. Hukum

This research aims to find out the implementation of initiative right of Regency Wonogiri Assembly during 2004-2009 period and the obstacle the Regency Wonogiri Assembly encounters during 2004-2009 period in implementing its initiative right. The study was a juridical empirical research that is descriptive in nature using primary and secondary data. The research was taken place in the office of Regency Wonogiri Assembly. The techniques of collecting data employed were interview and literary study. The technique of analyzing data employed was qualitative data analysis with interactive model. Based on the result of research, it is obtained that the initiative right of Regency Wonogiri Assembly during 2004-2009 has not been implemented in accordance with the prevailing rule/procedure because the draft of local regulation (Raperda) made into Local Regulation (Perda) derives from the executive or Local Government. The use of initiative right would be used by the member of assembly in that period, that is, the Raperda on Village Government. But it did not happen because of the over time replacement (PAW) within the team to two members. On the other hand, based on the analysis of Activity Scheduling Agenda Table of Regency Wonogiri Assembly in 2008 in the note “The discussion time of Raperda is adjusted with the Raperda delivery from the Bupati (Regent), it can be concluded that the assembly does not devise the Assembly Initiative Raperda and tends to wait for the Raperda from the Executive. The obstacles encountered include the human resource of Regency Wonogiri Assembly members in which the development of initiative Raperda requires the competent personnel in the technique of formulating Raperda or in legal drafting, thus the member of assembly frequently invites the legal drafter to accompany them in the attempt of formulating Raperda. The variability of perception or perspective often lengthens the time of Raperda discussion that should be completed quickly because of the dispute between the members of assembly involved and the Executive. In the aspect of tradition, the executive as the initiator of Raperda hold that the Executive Raperda is very strong because of the convenience from the derivative of regulation above it that can be replicated by the executive to propose the Raperda. In the aspect of Assembly’s agenda, the discussion of APBD (KUA and PPAS) is very complicated annually. There is a priority the Assembly should do annually, namely, concerning the RAPBD discussion in that year and the discussion preparation of the next year APBD (LKPJ discussion and Accountability Report) and evaluation of previous year APBD.