Regional Representative Council in the Indonesian State Governance System: A Study of the Bicameral System

This study aims to examine and analyze the authority of the DPD in the law-forming process based on the bicameral system. This study uses normative legal research with the statute and comparative approaches. The collected legal material is then qualitatively analyzed to describe the problem and answer study purposes. The results show that the DPD members possess strong political legitimacy, because members of both chambers within the legislative branch are elected through the electoral process in Indonesia. However, no provision in the legislation grants the DPD a legislative function. Instead, the DPD holds limited authority in the law-forming process, only able to propose, participate in discussions, and provide considerations to the DPR over draft laws. In comparison, Indonesia’s DPD has significantly more limited authority than senates in other countries with bicameral systems. Additionally, several perspectives, paradigms, and differentiating factors help explain the reasons and objectives behind implementing bicameral systems. Therefore, it is recommended that stakeholders understand the various perspectives, paradigms, and differentiating factors that explain the reasons and objectives behind implementing bicameral systems in other countries. This understanding aims to enhance the authority of the DPD as a legislative power within the Indonesian state governance system. This understanding can also serve as a consideration for stakeholders in amending the 1945 Constitution, Law Number 17 of 2014, and Law Number 12 of 2011. In this context, the legislative function in a bicameral system refers to forming and ratifying laws by both chambers within the legislative branch. Consequently, Indonesia’s bicameral system can become more effective, responsive, and inclusive, ultimately promoting a more democratic and stable state governance system in the future.


INTRODUCTION
In the early days of Indonesia's independence, the 1945 Constitution was designed as the legal foundation for organizing the newly independent state governance (Bachmid, 2020).Additionally, the institutionalization of popular sovereignty became the primary principle in the Indonesian governance system, realized through the 1945 Constitution.However, several issues arose from applying the Constitution's position and characteristics as time passed.These issues included the interpretation of the 1945 Constitution's material content, which often tended to be adjusted to suit the interests of each PENDAHULUAN Pada awal kemerdekaan Indonesia, UUD NRI Tahun 1945 dirancang sebagai landasan hukum untuk mengatur ketatanegaraan yang baru merdeka.Selain itu, pelembagaan kedaulatan rakyat menjadi asas utama dalam sistem pemerintahan Indonesia yang diwujudkan melalui UUD NRI Tahun 1945.Namun, beberapa isu muncul dari penerapan posisi dan karakteristik konstitusi seiring berjalannya waktu.Isu-isu tersebut antara lain interpretasi materi muatan UUD NRI Tahun 1945 yang seringkali cenderung disesuaikan dengan kepentingan masing-masing pihak, party, and the inconsistent implementation of other constitutional principles.
The complexity of these issues was exacerbated by conflicts in state governance, occurring both within the concerned state institutions and between state institutions or between state institutions and society (Saputra, 2015).In this context, the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR), the highest institution in the Indonesian governance system, should have proactively addressed these issues more proactively.Nevertheless, the MPR has not yet taken adequate steps to resolve the state governance conflicts arising from applying the Constitution's position and characteristics.These conflicts indicate weaknesses in the democratic mechanisms involving the branches of state power responsible for exercising checks and balances in implementing the 1945 Constitution.
The political transformation during the reform era in the late 1990s in Indonesia brought about significant changes to the country's constitutional system.The reform era served as a turning point for the Indonesian nation to evaluate and improve the existing political system, including amendments to the 1945 Constitution as the legal foundation of the state (Muzakkir, 2022).These changes involved various stakeholders, ranging from the Government and other state institutions to civil society.The constitutional amendments were carried out through a series of revisions that altered and added several articles to the 1945 Constitution, such as emphasizing human rights, reforming the governance system, and increasing public participation.Furthermore, the representative system of the people also changed as a result.
One of the essential changes in the conception of popular sovereignty was the shift from the supremacy of the MPR to constitutional supremacy.Before the reform era, the MPR was considered the highest institution in the country with authority to amend the 1945 Constitution and determine the nation's fundamental policies.Subsequently, the separation of powers and the principle of checks and balances were introduced to ensure that state power remained under the control of popular sovereignty through their representation in the two branches of state power: executive and legislative (Muzakkir et al., 2021).
On the other hand, there are several parliamentary systems within the legislative branch of power, one of which is the bicameral system.The bicameral system consists of two institutions or chambers.The first chamber is the Lower House, House of Commons, or House of Representatives (DPR).Meanwhile, the second chamber is called the Upper House, Senate, House of Lords, or Regional Representative Council (DPD).However, it differs from the Netherlands, where the Upper House is called the first chamber (erste kamer), and the Lower House is called the second chamber (tweede kamer).
DPD, an institution forming part of the state's branches of power, was established due to the third amendment to the 1945 Constitution in 2001.This institution aims to strengthen regional representation and balance national and regional interests within the Indonesian state governance system.As the second chamber within the legislative branch, the DPD possesses limited and distinct legislative authority compared to the DPR as the first chamber.
Comprising representatives from each province, the DPD was formed to ensure that the voices and aspirations of communities across various regions are represented in policy and legislation forming.The DPD focuses on regional interests, overseeing and proposing Draft Laws related to regional autonomy, center and regions relations, establishment, expansion and merger of regions, management of natural resources and other economic resources, and matters regarding the financial balance between the center and the region's Government (Tinambunan & Prasetio, 2019).
Over time, the political transformation in the reform era has raised several issues in the constitutional system, including the diverse interpretation of the amendments to the 1945 Constitution that have yet to accommodate essential aspects of state governance.These issues also impact the existence of the DPD as the second chamber in the legislative branch of power.Despite being established with good intentions, the limitations of the DPD's authority within the Constitution hinder its ability to optimize its function.The DPD's limited authority is evident in its relationship with the DPR, where the DPD only has the right to submit considerations on Draft Laws related to regional autonomy and other regional issues.In contrast, the DPR has no obligation to accommodate the considerations proposed by the DPD.
The different electoral systems for DPD and DPR members exacerbate these difficulties.The DPD electoral system does not involve political parties, making its members lack strong political support and rely on individual capabilities to promote their constituency's interests (Widodo, 2014).Furthermore, the DPD depends on cooperation with its partners, primarily the DPR, in legislative duties and functions.Due to its limited authority, the DPD often has to compromise the aspirations of its constituencies to reach agreements with the DPR.
This arrangement leads to DPD members competing with better-organized DPR members in realizing their respective constituencies' aspirations.On the other hand, the imbalance of power and the paradox of authority within the legislative branch make it difficult for the DPD to fulfill its role effectively.As a result, DPD members face challenges in explaining and being accountable for their existence and authority to their respective constituencies.DPD, sebuah lembaga yang merupakan bagian dari cabang kekuasaan negara, dibentuk sebagai akibat perubahan ketiga UUD NRI Tahun 1945 pada tahun 2001.Lembaga ini bertujuan untuk memperkuat keterwakilan daerah dan menyeimbangkan kepentingan nasional dan daerah dalam sistem ketatanegaraan Indonesia.Sebagai kamar kedua dalam lembaga legislatif, DPD memiliki kewenangan legislasi yang terbatas dan berbeda dengan DPR sebagai kamar pertama.
When considering the authority of the DPD in an international context, the bicameral system implemented in many countries aims to create a balance between national and states/provincial interests.However, countries with a bicameral system generally form a federal state, such as the United States (US) and Brazil (Junior & Teles, 2015;Ihsan, 2022).On the other hand, Argentina is a republic country with a bicameral system (Scocco, 2018).The Senate in these countries has more effective authority in enacting laws, influencing national policies, and protecting the interests of states/provinces.In contrast, the DPD's authority in the Indonesian state governance system is not yet optimal due to several factors, one of which is the limitation in influencing policy-making or lawsforming.
Additionally, the bicameral system in Indonesia is known as a soft bicameral system, which differs from other countries.The limited authority of the DPD results from the bicameral concept applied in Indonesia without a clear paradigm and not referring to the existing bicameral system in any country.Aspani and Yusmanda (2022) argue that if legislators learn from countries implementing a bicameral system and then apply it, the DPD's authority would be more optimal.
In this context, various efforts have been made to enhance the authority of the DPD through political and legal processes.One legal effort is the presence of Decision Number 92/PUU-X/2012 and Decision Number 79/PUU-XII/2014, which provide a legal basis regarding the authority of the DPD in the legislative process.Furthermore, the Decision also asserts that the DPD has the initiative right to propose draft laws related to regional interests, enabling a more significant contribution to national decision-making processes.
Based on the description above, this study aims to examine and analyze the authority of the DPD in the law-forming process based on the bicameral system.

METHOD
This study uses normative legal research with the statute and comparative approaches (Qamar & Rezah, 2020).The legal materials used in this study include legislation, books, scientific law articles, and online materials discussing the function of legislation in a bicameral system.The collection of legal materials is carried out using a literature study technique.The collected legal material is then qualitatively analyzed to describe the problem and answer study purposes (Sampara & Husen, 2016).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The bicameral system is a structure in the parliament consisting of a first and second chamber which John Locke influenced regarding the separation of powers (Chidqi, 2020).This system prevents majority tyranny and creates checks and balances between representatives of the people and region.The bicameral system ensures inclusive, democratic legislative processes, so the two chambers' authority is very important.The modern concept of a bicameral system developed rapidly in Europe during the Middle Ages.The most famous example of a bicameral system is the British Parliament, which consists of the House of Commons (Lower House) and the House of Lords (Upper House) (Makarova, 2019).This system has inspired numerous governments worldwide.
The authority between both chambers in a bicameral system plays a crucial role in maintaining accountability and transparency in the law-forming process.With the checks and balances mechanism, this system encourages broader consideration of policy impacts and various stakeholders' interests before the law's ratification.In addition, this condition encourages both chambers to debate, review, and revise draft laws more effectively, ultimately producing better and more efficient laws.
A balance of authority between the two chambers can also reduce the risk of political polarization and conflict while ensuring inclusive and participatory policies.The bicameral system, accommodating various interests, can create better and more responsive laws to meet societal needs (Widiyanto & Anita, 2022).The authority of each chamber is a critical factor in establishing an effective and responsive system for political and social changes.
Cooperation between both chambers in the law-forming process emphasizes the importance of generating fair and representative policies.The bicameral system often reflects a country's broader political and social structure, where the second chamber represents regional or specific social group interests, and the first chamber represents the interests of society as a whole.
In implementing bicameral systems, each country exhibits diverse characteristics, reflecting their approach to balancing the interests of the people and regions in the law-forming process.For instance, the US has a Senate representing states and a House of Representatives representing the people.Indonesia has a DPD representing regions and a DPR representing the people.
These diverse characteristics demonstrate how bicameral systems can be adapted to meet the needs
Karakteristik yang beragam ini menunjukkan bagaimana sistem bikameral dapat diadaptasi untuk memenuhi kebutuhan dan aspirasi berbagai sistem and aspirations of various state governance systems and societies.Sometimes, the first chamber holds authority equal to the second in law-forming matters.Both chambers collaborate in the law-forming process, ensuring that each draft law undergoes comprehensive scrutiny and evaluation before being enacted.However, in Indonesia, the authority of the second chamber is more limited.As a result, implementing bicameral systems reflects each country's political, historical, and social context.

The Existence of the Regional Representative Council in the Law-Forming Process Based on the Indonesian State Governance System
The DPD in the Indonesian state governance system context first existed as the second chamber in 2004-2009.The DPD plays a crucial role in the law-forming process.As the second chamber of the bicameral system, the DPD has a specific function in overseeing and proposing suggestions related to regional affairs, including managing natural resources and the government's financial balance between the center and the region.Article 22D of the 1945 Constitution regulates that: (1) The Regional Representative Council may propose to the House of Representatives a draft law related to regional autonomy, the relations of central and local government, formation, expansion and merger of regions, management of natural resources and other economic resources, and draft law related to the financial balance between the center and the regions.
(2) The Regional Representative Council participates in the discussion of draft law related to regional autonomy; the relations of central and local government; formation, expansion, and merger of regions; management of natural resources and other economic resources, and financial balance between the center and the regions; and provides consideration to the House of Representatives over the draft law on the state budget and on draft law related to taxation, education, or religion.
(3) The Regional Representative Council may supervise the implementation of laws concerning regional autonomy, the formation, expansion and merger of regions, the relations of central and local government, management of natural resources and other economic resources, implementation of the state budget, taxation, education, or religion and submits the result of such supervision to the House of Representatives as consideration to be followed-up.
(4) The members of the Regional Representative Council may be removed from office under requirements and procedures regulated by law.In the Indonesian state governance system, the DPD is not the holder of law-forming powers but instead serves as a supporting or auxiliary body for the DPR, particularly concerning legislative functions.The DPD only serves as a complement to the DPR.Asshiddiqie (2012) added that the DPD was only a co-legislator, not a pure legislator.In contrast, DPD members have strong political legitimacy.DPD is equivalent to the political legitimacy of DPR members because the members in both chambers within the legislative branch are elected through the electoral process in Indonesia.
Despite its limited authority in the law-forming process, the DPD's existence as the second chamber within the legislative branch aims to ensure that lawforming executed by the DPR reflects regional interests and creates a fair balance between the center and the region's interests.

The Authority of the DPD or Senate within the Branch of Legislative Power: A Bicameral System Perspective
The authority of Indonesia's DPD is significantly more limited compared to senates in other countries implementing a bicameral system.Although no absolute conception states that each chamber in a bicameral system must have equal authority in law-forming, some countries' constitutions grant nearly equal authority to both chambers as legislative power.Furthermore, the legislative function in a bicameral system refers to forming and ratifying laws by both chambers within the legislative branch.
Both chambers are expected to perform legislative functions or collaborate to make fair and efficient laws in such a system.Concrete examples of legislative power in a bicameral system can be seen in the arrangement of authority within the constitutions of several countries.Article I, Section 1 of the US Constitution regulates that: Dalam sistem ketatanegaraan Indonesia, DPD bukanlah pemegang kekuasaan pembentuk undangundang melainkan berfungsi sebagai pendukung atau pembantu DPR, khususnya yang menyangkut fungsi legislasi.DPD hanya berfungsi sebagai pelengkap DPR.Asshiddiqie menambahkan, DPD hanya sebagai colegislator, bukan legislator murni.Sebaliknya, anggota DPD memiliki legitimasi politik yang kuat.DPD setara dengan legitimasi politik anggota DPR karena anggota di kedua kamar di lembaga legislatif dipilih melalui proses pemilu di Indonesia.
Kedua kamar diharapkan untuk melakukan fungsi legislasi atau berkolaborasi untuk membuat undangundang yang adil dan efisien dalam sistem seperti itu.The aforementioned constitutional provisions demonstrate that the Senates in these countries possess broader authority than Indonesia's DPD.In addition, the Senates in these countries also hold the authority to approve if the President will make international treaties/agreements and appoint executive and judicial officers (Wordliczek, 2021;Anderson, 2022;Kiessling & Alonso, 2022).Furthermore, the Senates in these countries have the authority to control the abuse of power by public officials and other constitutional authorities (Urbina, 2006;Galgoczy et al., 2022;Sawicka, 2022).
Conversely, the judge described considering Decision Number 79/PUU-XII/2014.In this case, the judge outlined the eight state institutions regulated in the 1945 Constitution: the MPR, DPR, DPD, President, MA, MK, BPK, and KY.The judge asserted that these institutions are positioned according to their functions, duties, and authorities established in the 1945 Constitution without questioning the equality between institutions.
Constitutionally, the judge's opinion is accurate, as every state institution must comply with and submit to the 1945 Constitution.However, in the context of the legislative branch, the judge must understand various perspectives and paradigms underlying the implementation of the bicameral system.In the study of bicameral systems, several perspectives and paradigms explain the reasons and objectives behind implementing this system.The following are some essential perspectives and paradigms in the bicameral system that the judge should consider.

Checks and Balances Perspective
This perspective explains that the purpose of the bicameral system is to create a balance of power and mutual control between both chambers within the legislative branch (Farhan & Mustakim, 2021).Through this mechanism, each chamber has equal authority to correct or cancel decisions made by the other chamber.The expert associated with this thought is Montesquieu (1834), who argues the importance of sharing power in the state governance system.

Political Stability Paradigm
This paradigm explains that the purpose of the bicameral system is to increase political stability by ensuring that law ratification is carefully considered and involves consensus between both chambers within the legislative branch (Manan, 2017).Through this mechanism, each chamber prevents radical changes that might occur if the other chamber has dominant authority.The expert associated with this thought is Bagehot (1867), who argues that the House of Commons and House of Lords maintain political stability in England.

Minority Rights Protection Paradigm
This paradigm explains that the purpose of the bicameral system is to protect minority rights by ensuring their aspirations and representation are accommodated in the law-forming process (Syarwi, 2022).The first chamber represents most of the population through this mechanism, while the other chamber represents minority interests or less influential groups.The expert associated with this thought is Mill (1859), who argues that it is important to protect the interests of the minority and prevent the tyranny of the majority.

Democratic Legitimation Perspective
This perspective explains that the purpose of the bicameral system is to foster democratization by involving more actors in the decision-making process (Dharmapala et al., 2022).Through this mechanism, each chamber represents different interests, thus accommodating various perspectives and interests in society.The expert associated with this thought is Tocqueville (1835), who argues that it is important to maintain democratic stability in the US.

Political Responsiveness Paradigm
This paradigm explains that the purpose of the bicameral system is to enhance the political responsiveness of representatives to the diverse needs and interests in society (Andriyan, 2018).Through this mechanism, each chamber represents different interests, thus capturing and responding to changing societal interests.The expert associated with this thought is Dahl (1956), who argues that it emphasizes the importance of realizing a more responsive and inclusive democracy.

Democratic Deliberation Perspective
This perspective explains that the purpose of the bicameral system is to improve the quality of democratic deliberation by allowing for broader and more in-depth debates on important issues (Aryanto, 2020).Each chamber reviews and critiques proposals ini adalah Hamilton et al., yang berpendapat pentingnya mencegah kebijakan yang tergesa-gesa dan memastikan kebijakan yang lebih matang dan efektif.

Proportional Representation Paradigm
This paradigm explains that the bicameral system aims to ensure fairer and more inclusive representation for various groups and political parties within the legislative branch (Yokotani, 2017).Through this mechanism, each chamber represents parties or groups proportionally according to the percentage of votes obtained by each party or group, creating a representation that better reflects the diversity of voters within the legislative branch.The expert associated with this thought is Sartori (1976), who argues that applying proportional representation can balance both chambers within the legislative branch, protect minority rights, and enhance political stability and social cohesion.
Considering the perspectives and paradigms above, it is understandable that the bicameral system has its diversity and complexity in various legal, political, and socio-cultural contexts.
On the other hand, several factors influence the differences in authority between Indonesia's DPD and the Senates in other countries implementing a bicameral system.These factors include each country's political-legal history, government structure, and social-cultural dynamics.A country's political-legal history significantly impacts the authority of the second chamber, Upper House, Senate, House of Lords, or DPD.In Indonesia, establishing the DPD responds to the need for political reform and decentralization of power to maintain a fair balance between the center and the region's interests (Husen et al., 2022).However, the DPD in Indonesia does not hold legislative power, while Senates in other countries do.
Government structure also plays a crucial role in determining the authority of the second chamber.Countries with a federal government system generally grant greater authority to the Senate because it represents states' interests at the national level.The second chamber's authority is also influenced by the social-cultural dynamics of each country's institutions.Countries with established democracies and strong institutions tend to have balanced authority between both chambers.In contrast, countries with newer or less stable political systems may experience larger differences in authority between both chambers.These factors generally cause differences in authority between Indonesia's DPD and Senates in other countries implementing a bicameral system.diajukan, sehingga menghasilkan pengesahan undangundang yang lebih matang dan bijaksana.Tokoh yang terkait dengan pemikiran ini adalah Habermas, yang berpendapat pentingnya komunikasi dan dialog dalam proses demokrasi.
From the discussions above, it can be understood that grasping the perspectives, paradigms, and differentiating factors play a crucial role in evaluating a country's bicameral system's performance and effectiveness.Additionally, this understanding serves as a consideration for amending the 1945 Constitution, Law Number 17 of 2014, and Law Number 12 of 2011 regarding enhancing the DPD's authority as a legislative power in the Indonesian state governance system.In this case, the legislative function in a bicameral system refers to forming and ratifying laws by both chambers within the legislative branch.

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
Based on the results and discussion, it is concluded that the DPD members possess strong political legitimacy, equal to the political legitimacy of DPR members.This equivalence arises because members of both chambers within the legislative branch are elected through the electoral process in Indonesia.However, no provision in the 1945 Constitution, Law Number 17 of 2014 (including its amendments), or Law Number 12 of 2011 (including its amendments) grants the DPD a legislative function.Instead, the DPD holds limited authority in the law-forming process, only able to propose, participate in discussions, and provide considerations to the DPR over draft laws.In comparison, Indonesia's DPD has significantly more limited authority than senates in other countries with bicameral systems.While no absolute conception states that each chamber in a bicameral system must possess equal authority in law-forming, some countries' constitutions grant nearly equal authority to both chambers as legislative power.Additionally, several perspectives, paradigms, and differentiating factors help explain the reasons and objectives behind implementing bicameral systems.Based on the description of these conclusions, it is recommended that stakeholders understand the various perspectives, paradigms, and differentiating factors that explain the reasons and objectives behind implementing bicameral systems in other countries.This understanding aims to enhance the authority of the DPD as a legislative power within the Indonesian state governance system.This understanding can also serve as a consideration for stakeholders in amending the 1945 Constitution, Law Number 17 of 2014, and Law Number 12 of 2011.In this context, the legislative function in a bicameral system refers to forming and ratifying laws by both chambers within the legislative branch.Consequently, Indonesia's bicameral system can become more effective, responsive, and inclusive, ultimately promoting a more democratic and stable state governance system in the future.
The provisions above show that the DPD has limited authority in the law-forming process.The DPD can only propose draft laws related to Article 22D section (1) of the 1945 Constitution.Additionally, the DPD participates in discussions and provides considerations to the DPR over draft laws related to Article 22D section (2) of the 1945 Constitution.Apart from matters related to Article 22D section (1) and section (2) of the 1945 Constitution, the DPD lacks the authority to propose, participate in discussions, or provide considerations to the DPR on draft laws related to the State Budget Revenue and Expenditure (APBN).The DPD's authority mechanism in the law-forming process is further regulated in Law Number 17 of 2014, which has been amended more than once (Law Number 42 of 2014 for the first amendment; Law Number 2 of 2018 for the second amendment; Law Number 13 of 2019 for the third amendment).Even though the authority of the DPD is only limited to may supervise the implementation of laws related to the implementation of the APBN based on Article 22D section (3) of the 1945 Constitution, the DPD has rights based on Article 256 point c of Law Number 17 of 2014 which regulates that: "The DPD has the right to provide consideration to the DPR in discussions of the draft law on the state budget revenue and expenditure and draft laws related to taxation, education, or religion."Tidak ditemukan ketentuan dalam UUD NRI Tahun 1945, UU Nomor 17 Tahun 2014 (termasuk Law Number 12 of 2011 (including its amendments), which regulates that the DPD has a legislative function.The DPD merely possesses limited authority in the lawforming process, such as only being able to propose, participate in discussions, and provide considerations to the DPR over draft laws.
"Law means Legislation formed by the House of Representatives with the joint approval of the President."No provision is found in the 1945 Constitution, Law Number 17 of 2014 (including its amendments), and