Indonesian Civil Society Coalition for Open Government
Publish What You Pay (PWYP) Indonesia; Indonesia Judicial Research Society (IJRS); International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development (INFID); Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW); Transparency International Indonesia (TI-I); Wahana Visi Indonesia (WVI); Association for Elections and Democracy (Perludem)
Monday, 31 August 2026, the Indonesian Civil Society Coalition for Open Government (Koalisi CSO OGP Indonesia) held a media discussion entitled “Who Is Being Heard in Indonesia’s Decision-Making Today?” The discussion reflected on the challenges faced by civil society in public policymaking by examining several critical and ongoing issues. In addition to representatives of the Indonesian Civil Society Coalition for Open Government, the discussion also involved representatives of communities affected by the Flores earthquake, hydrometeorological disasters in Sumatra, and forest and land fires in Kalimantan.
As the organizer, the CSO OGP Coalition has carried out its mandate to monitor civil society participation in the implementation of Indonesia’s open government commitments under the global Open Government Partnership (OGP). Therefore, the principles of transparency, the right to information, public participation, civic space, and accountability discussed in the forum are not merely normative ideals. They are commitments that Indonesia has formally undertaken and, consequently, are subject to public scrutiny and accountability.
Governance crises do not affect everyone equally. Women, Indigenous Peoples, persons with disabilities, and other vulnerable groups face multiple barriers to accessing information, participating in decision-making, and holding the state accountable. GEDSI is not a decorative add-on—it is a lens that determines whether the principles of open government have meaningful implications for all citizens, or only for those who already have access.
Indonesia is currently undergoing a number of rapid and far-reaching policy changes. Within a relatively short period, various strategic decisions have been made that affect almost every aspect of public life, including state budget efficiency policies, budget refocusing toward the President’s priority programs such as the Free Nutritious Meals Program and the Red-and-White Village Cooperatives, the implementation of National Strategic Projects (PSNs) that threaten environmental sustainability, central government–regional government fiscal relations that indicate an increasingly centralized system of governance, as well as the government’s inadequate management of various disasters and crises directly affecting communities.
Amid these developments, an increasingly important question emerges: who is actually being heard when these decisions are made? This question was explored through the following discussion topics.
Public Participation in the Formulation and Implementation of Public Policies
In principle, the Government has established various consultation forums and participation channels. The more fundamental question, however, is whether people have sufficient access to understand the reasons and basis for a policy; whether affected communities have a meaningful opportunity to express their views and influence decisions; whether criticism and objections can be raised safely; and whether the Government is willing to explain, respond to, and take responsibility for the impacts of its decisions. These principles form the foundation of democratic and open government.
The Constitutional Court, through Decision No. 91/PUU-XVIII/2020, affirmed that meaningful participation in the formulation of laws requires three cumulative elements: (1) the right to be heard; (2) the right to have one’s views considered; and (3) the right to receive an explanation regarding the views expressed. This constitutional standard transforms the demand for meaningful participation from a voluntary OGP norm into a legal obligation that can be enforced and held to account. However, the consequences of failing to fulfill these standards are not equally distributed. Women, Indigenous Peoples, persons with disabilities, and historically marginalized groups bear the greatest burden when these three criteria are not met.
On the one hand, Indonesia has various formal instruments to guarantee transparency and public participation, including the Public Information Disclosure Law, public consultation mechanisms, various complaint channels, and commitments under the open government agenda. A number of formal indicators also demonstrate progress in the practice of information disclosure across several public institutions.
On the other hand, communities’ experiences reveal a more complex reality. Access to critical information—including information concerning budgets, policies, development planning, and decisions that directly affect communities—continues to face various barriers.
Similar problems can also be observed in the process of drafting legislation. A number of strategic legislative amendments have been processed at an extremely rapid pace, raising concerns about public participation and the quality of legislation. For example, the Draft Law on the Indonesian National Armed Forces (RUU TNI) was not included among the 41 priority bills in the 2025 National Legislation Program (Prolegnas Prioritas 2025). It was subsequently proposed through a Presidential Letter on 13 February 2025 and approved by the plenary session on 18 February 2025. The TNI Bill was prioritized over the Draft Law on the Protection of Domestic Workers (RUU PPRT), which has long been demanded by the public. At the same time, several regulatory agendas that have been advocated by civil society for years continue to face prolonged processes without clear certainty.
Limited public participation has also been compounded by the shrinking of civic space and the suppression of criticism voiced by civil society. Data from various civil society organizations indicate the occurrence of violence, intimidation, criminalization, and other forms of pressure against citizens and groups expressing criticism or engaging in advocacy.
Records from civil society coalitions and legal aid organizations show that at least 6,719 people were arrested by authorities during the wave of demonstrations that peaked between 25 and 31 August 2025 in various cities across Indonesia. This situation is particularly relevant in the context of public decision-making. Participation cannot be considered meaningful if people are formally given space to speak but face risks when their views differ from those of the Government or when they criticize public policies.
Central–Regional Government Relations
The question of who is being heard is also reflected in the relationship between the central government, regional governments, and communities. Budgetary policies and the determination of national priorities can significantly affect the ability of regional governments to deliver public services and respond to local needs.
The Law on Financial Relations between the Central Government and Regional Governments requires all regional governments to limit personnel expenditure to a maximum of 30% of their regional budgets (APBD). This situation has been exacerbated by Presidential Instruction (Inpres) No. 1/2025, which has affected the ability of regional governments to provide public services. Several regions, including East Nusa Tenggara (NTT) Province, have even faced the prospect of laying off approximately 9,000 government employees under the PPPK scheme as a result of this policy.
Similar questions arise in various development policies and strategic projects. For communities living in affected areas, the issue is not simply whether a project is necessary, but whether they receive sufficient information, are meaningfully involved in decision-making processes, and have effective mechanisms to raise objections when policies adversely affect their lives.
For example, Indigenous communities in South Papua have been affected by rice-field development and sugarcane plantation projects. They have called for the termination of National Strategic Projects (PSNs) that they consider to be taking away their land and livelihoods. Transparency International Indonesia has stated that PSNs often disregard the principles of anti-corruption, participation, and justice; when communities resist, they may face criminalization under allegations of obstructing investment.
The Context of Disaster Management in Indonesia
In times of crisis and disaster, the importance of these principles becomes even more evident. When communities face fires, natural disasters, disruptions to basic services, or food and social protection challenges, government openness is no longer merely an administrative matter. Accurate and timely information, the state’s ability to listen to communities’ needs, and accountability mechanisms for government responses can directly determine people’s safety and well-being.
In the context of the Flores earthquake, Charles Beraf, a church missionary in Flores and a speaker at the media discussion, revealed that disaster management efforts in Flores had been hampered by misinformation and the absence of a centralized disaster information center. As a result, communities took matters into their own hands and carried out independent evacuations. The Government’s emergency response and disaster management efforts were also considered slow.
A similar concern was raised by Wawan, a representative of communities affected by forest and land fires in Kalimantan. The Meteorology, Climatology, and Geophysical Agency (BMKG) had previously warned of the potential for forest and land fires due to El Niño, but government mitigation and response efforts were considered delayed.
Meanwhile, Alfian, a representative of communities affected by floods and landslides in Aceh, reported that disaster management efforts in Sumatra have now entered the reconstruction and rehabilitation phase. However, progress remains stagnant.
Follow-Up
The various issues identified during the media discussion raise fundamental questions: When the state makes decisions, does the public know what is being decided? Are affected communities being heard? Do they have the space to influence decisions? And when communities raise criticism or objections, is the state willing to listen and respond?
These questions are important in assessing the state of open government principles in Indonesia. Open government is not determined merely by the existence of documents, indices, forums, or participation channels. These principles are truly tested in everyday practice: when information is requested, when policies are formulated, when communities reject or question decisions, when vulnerable groups are affected, and when the state is called upon to account for its actions.
Recommendations
- The Government must ensure and monitor the fulfillment of meaningful participation in every policy and regulatory formulation process in accordance with Constitutional Court Decision No. 91/PUU-XVIII/2020, particularly the right to be heard, the right to have one’s views considered, and the right to receive an explanation.
- The President must instruct law enforcement authorities to end all forms of intimidation, criminalization, and violence against human rights defenders, environmental activists, and communities exercising their right to criticize public policies.
- Ministries/agencies and the House of Representatives (DPR RI) must evaluate the implementation of National Strategic Projects (PSNs) that affect environmental sustainability, GEDSI, and anti-corruption principles, or that have the potential to harm affected communities.
- The Government must redirect and prioritize the state budget (APBN) toward addressing disasters and ongoing ecological crises in Indonesia, including the Sumatra disasters, the Flores earthquake, forest and land fires in Kalimantan, and other emergencies.
- Ministries/agencies must ensure transparency and accountability for the budgets allocated to national priority policies.
Contact Persons
- Rinto Leonardo, INFID — [email protected]
- Meliana Lumbantoruan, PWYP Indonesia — [email protected]
- Agus Sarwono, Transparency International Indonesia — [email protected]