Finance Minister Purbaya Fired: Is It Unlawful?
By: Tri Lukman Hakim, S.H.
Founder of Sosiolegal | Global-Indexed Socio-Legal Researcher (ORCID ID: 0009-0003-4829-1185)
The sudden dismissal of Purbaya Yudhi Sadewa from his post as Minister of Finance on September 14, 2026, has ignited fierce debate among constitutional and administrative law experts.
While the President holds absolute prerogative authority under Article 17 of the 1945 Constitution, executing a ministerial removal while the official is actively representing the state in an official DPD session is seen as a direct violation of the General Principles of Good Governance, as governed by Law Number 30 of 2014 on Government Administration.
Although the issuance of the Presidential Decree is formally valid, the timing and procedural execution raise serious questions regarding substantive legality and constitutional conventions.
Presidential Prerogative vs. Administrative Law Safeguards
The employment status of a cabinet minister lies at the crossroads of two legal regimes:
- Formal Legality (Article 17 of the 1945 Constitution & State Ministry Law): Ministers serve as aides appointed and dismissed at the president's pleasure. The constitutional text imposes no procedural mandate requiring the executive to wait until specific ministerial duties conclude.
- Good Governance Mandates (Law No. 30/2014): Article 5(2) and Article 8(2) require every administrative action by state officials to adhere strictly to the principle of legality and good governance to prevent misuse of authority.
4 Key Statutory Provisions Challenging the Dismissal Procedure
Executing a dismissal without a dignified exit directly collides with written statutory standards:
- Article 10(1): Legal Certainty and Accountability: Administrative actions must ensure certainty, procedural openness, and public accountability. Altering an official's legal status without prior notification breaches basic bureaucratic transparency.
- Elucidation of Article 10: Fair Play and Due Care: State authorities must act with due care and uphold the dignified treatment of state apparatus. Sacking a minister mid-session degrades the stature of public office and disrupts inter-agency coordination.
- Article 17(2)(c): Prohibition of Arbitrary Action: Government officials are explicitly prohibited from enacting decisions that fall under arbitrary exercise of power.
- Article 18(3): Criteria for Administrative Defects: Administrative decisions are defined as arbitrary if they contradict good governance principles, creating grounds to argue that the execution was administratively flawed.
Political Reality and Institutional Integrity
This abrupt dismissal sets a concerning precedent across two primary fronts:
- Undermining Constitutional Forums: Ministers attending legislative assemblies act on behalf of the sovereign government. Mid-meeting removals damage the dignity of executive representation before regional representatives.
- Absence of a Fiscal Transition: The state treasurer directly anchors capital market sentiment and currency stability. Executing an immediate removal without an orderly handover elevates short-term political maneuvering over systemic economic prudence.
While ministerial appointments and dismissals generally fall outside the jurisdiction of administrative courts as executive acts of governance, bypassing administrative propriety remains a detrimental precedent for modern governance in Indonesia.
Source: This analysis is an English translation of an original op-ed by Tri Lukman Hakim S.H, published on the main journal. [Read Original Article in Indonesian]
Comments
Post a Comment