The high degree of local government enthusiasm and expectation over the implementation of the Public Information Openness Act (UU KIP) will improve information transparency, including transparency of governmental budgetary management and planning. Indirectly, this information transparency can reduce the potential for corruption and budgetary fraud. As part of this enthusiasm, many local governments have requested guidance or guidelines that are more detailed from the Ministry of Home Affairs, primarily regarding information disputes that are handled by the Officer for Information and Documentation (PPID).

The establishment of a PPID by local governments was the main mandate of the UU KIP. However, from the Ministry of Home Affairs target for 50% in 2013, PPIDs have been established by 26.79% of governments, according to a Ministry of Information and Communications performance matrix dated 1 November 2013. According to PATTIRO’s notes, there are approximately 13 PPIDs that are yet to be included in this matrix. If those 13 were added, then percentage of provincial, district and city governments would reach 29.24%, a figure which is great enough to serve as an initial model for the greater implementation of the UU KIP. This percentage must be gradually increased by governments to 100%, that is to say that all regions have a PPID.

From the community side (demand side), the high demand for information by the public will encourage governments to establish PPIDs. If a certain region is yet to possess a PPID, then the local government will find it hard to observe service standards, especially in the meeting of time limits for information requests. If an information request passes the time limits set by the UU KIP and Information Commission Regulation, then it can be legitimately disputed by the information requester. So, without a PPID, there is a significant potential for information disputes to arise.

When an information dispute arises in a province such as East Nusa Tenggara (NTT) that does not yet possess a Provincial Information Commission, the information dispute is handled by the Central Information Commission (KI). However, such handling of local level information disputes by the KI would definitely give rise to inefficiencies and ineffectiveness. Therefore, for efficiency and effectiveness in the settlement of local level information disputes, the government must hasten the creation and functioning of provincial KIs in areas that have yet to establish them.

In order to maintain the strong enthusiasm and meet the expectation associated with the implementation of the UU KIP, PATTIRO supports the government (especially associated ministries) in maintaining consistency in the guidance and supervising of local level PPID establishment as well as in the undertaking of monitoring and evaluating. According to planning, the Ministry of Home Affairs will undertake monitoring and evaluation of whether areas have or have not established a PPID.

PATTIRO proposes that the monitoring and evaluation should not, however, be limited to whether or not a local government has established a PPID or not. Instead, monitoring and evaluation should establish whether PPIDs are functioning and if there is appropriate information management infrastructure. It should monitor operational policies, the personal responsible for handling cases and whether or not there are appropriate levels of funding for the operationalization of the PPID. The monitoring and evaluation of the PPID functionality must also measure the results of information management by the PPID.  It must measure the capability of a PPID in managing information that is open to the public and that which is excluded (closed to the public), whilst also monitoring information services processes. The PPID must be capable of categorising that information, and disseminating it to (updating) the public periodically or as requested by the public, appropriate with the category of information.

After monitoring and evaluating the functionality of information management, it is also important that the Ministry of Home Affairs undertakes monitoring and evaluation of the benefit of the PPID to society. This monitoring and evaluation of benefit is to measure the effect generated, as the implementation of the UU KIP will inevitably have quite strong implications for government. Currently, this measurement of program effects is still rarely undertaken by government, including in the implementation of the UU KIP.

Furthermore, government, both central and local, must be capable of convincing representatives (DPR and DPRD) to not reject budget proposals for the establishment and operationalisation of KIs and PPIDs. No matter what has been agreed to by representatives, there must be budgets for the establishment of KIs and PPIDs. The central government and, in this case, the Ministry of Home Affairs can award local governments or PPIDs that perform well, or punish those that perform poorly or are yet to establish a PPID. This system of award and punishment, besides providing incentive for the establishment of PPIDs in regions or ministries/institutions, also, measures PPID performance and the implementation of the UU KIP.

It is important and strategic for government to compose operational or technical guidance for PPIDs in the management of information, especially on how to deal with information disputes. However, for the effective implementation of such instruments, the Ministry of Home Affairs should increase pressure, whether through regulation, rules or whatever the form, so that the establishment of PPIDs becomes a requirement for local governments.

Nov 18, 2013

Sad Dian Utomo | Executive Director of PATTIRO
saddian@pattiro.org | 0812 800 3045

Contact Person: Ahmad Rofik | Monitoring and Evaluation
rofik@pattiro.org