The article, titled “Local State Obligation and the Vertical Allocation of Human Rights Obligations in Indonesia,” examines how human rights responsibilities are distributed among central ministries, regional offices of national agencies, and local governments. The researchers identify three major institutional gaps: inconsistencies between local regulations and national human rights standards, unclear responsibilities among government institutions, and weaknesses in the process of correcting violations.
Their proposed framework, called Local State Obligation, seeks to ensure that every public authority knows its legal responsibilities and that citizens can obtain protection even when several government institutions are involved.
Decentralization Must Not Weaken Human Rights Protection
Indonesia’s decentralized government system distributes public responsibilities among national, provincial, regency, and municipal institutions. This arrangement allows regional authorities to manage local affairs, but it can also complicate the delivery of public services and the protection of constitutional rights.
The researchers explain that decentralization changes how government responsibilities are carried out, not the rights that citizens possess. Every Indonesian citizen should receive equal legal protection regardless of where they live.
Indonesia’s Constitution guarantees equality before the law, freedom of religion or belief, and protection against discrimination. The country has also ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights through Law No. 12 of 2005, committing the State to respect and protect fundamental rights.
However, citizens interact with different institutions when accessing public services. A single human rights issue may involve a central ministry, a local civil-registration office, an education authority, or a regional government.
This division can create uncertainty about which institution must respond to a complaint, implement a protection measure, or correct an administrative decision.
The researchers emphasize that the government cannot use its internal division of authority as a reason for failing to protect human rights.
How the Researchers Examined Indonesia’s Legal Framework
Palilingan and his colleagues used doctrinal legal research, an approach that examines legislation, legal principles, court decisions, and institutional responsibilities to understand how laws operate.
The team reviewed Indonesia’s Constitution, human rights legislation, local government regulations, administrative law, and laws governing civil registration, public services, and education. The researchers also examined Constitutional Court decisions and materials from the National Human Rights Commission (Komnas HAM), the United Nations Human Rights Committee, and other relevant institutions.
The legal status of the principal regulations was checked against official Indonesian databases as of August 25, 2026.
Rather than conducting a survey or measuring the prevalence of discrimination, the researchers analyzed how existing laws allocate authority and how gaps in that allocation could affect human rights protection.
The study also used the Jewish community in Indonesia as a focused legal example to examine the challenges faced by small religious communities. The authors explicitly state that this case is an analytical illustration, not an empirical study of individual Jewish citizens or evidence of how every member of the community experiences public services.
Three Institutional Gaps Could Leave Rights Unprotected
The researchers identified three major weaknesses in the relationship between national human rights obligations and local government implementation.
1. Conflicts between local regulations and national standards
Local regulations and policies may conflict with constitutional guarantees or Indonesia’s international human rights commitments. The United Nations Human Rights Committee raised concerns about discriminatory local provisions in its observations on Indonesia in 2013 and 2024.
The study argues that local autonomy must operate within national and international human rights standards. Regional policies should not reduce the minimum protection guaranteed to citizens.
2. Unclear responsibilities among government institutions
Some rights depend on several institutions working together. Freedom of religion or belief, for example, is connected not only to religious policy but also to civil registration, education, public order, and the provision of public services.
Under Law No. 23 of 2014 on Local Government, religion is an absolute affair of the Central Government. Nevertheless, local authorities and central government agencies operating in the regions may still perform functions that affect the practical enjoyment of religious freedom.
Without clear coordination, institutions may disagree about who has the authority or responsibility to act.
3. Weak links between complaints and effective remedies
Identifying a human rights problem does not automatically resolve it. An institution may investigate a complaint or issue a recommendation, but another authority may need to take corrective action.
The researchers argue that the process must clearly identify the institution responsible for implementing a remedy and monitoring the outcome. Otherwise, citizens may encounter repeated referrals without receiving an effective solution.
A Proposed Framework for Stronger Human Rights Governance
To address these problems, the researchers propose Local State Obligation as a legal and institutional framework for connecting national human rights standards with the distribution of governmental authority.
The model contains six main elements:
- A national human rights baseline: Local governments may adapt administrative practices to local conditions, but they must not lower the minimum protection guaranteed by national law and international commitments.
- Clear responsibility mapping: Each human rights obligation should be linked to the institution responsible for acting, its legal authority, the supervising body, and the available remedy.
- Limits on local discretion: Regional authorities should retain flexibility in administration while respecting legality, equality, non-discrimination, and proportionality.
- Preventive human rights supervision: Proposed regional regulations and policies affecting fundamental rights should undergo assessments to identify potential discrimination before they take effect.
- An integrated complaint and correction process: Complaints should lead to an identifiable decision-maker, appropriate corrective action, and monitoring to determine whether the problem has been resolved.
- Residual responsibility when authority is unclear: The Central Government should help maintain minimum protection when disputes over institutional responsibilities would otherwise leave citizens without assistance.
The authors distinguish between requirements already supported by existing law and reforms they propose for future implementation. In particular, a dedicated Human Rights Compatibility Assessment and a formal mechanism for resolving gaps in responsibility are presented as proposed institutional developments, not as fully established legal requirements.
What the Findings Mean for Public Services and Minority Protection
The framework could help make public administration more predictable by clarifying where citizens should direct complaints and which institutions must respond. It could also support better coordination between central agencies and regional governments.
For religious minorities, the study highlights the importance of distinguishing freedom of religion from administrative recognition or registration. A person's fundamental rights should not depend solely on whether their religious affiliation is commonly encountered by public officials.
The authors use the Jewish community as an example of why administrative systems must accommodate less common circumstances without creating unnecessary barriers. They do not claim that all Jewish citizens experience the same difficulties or establish the current operation of every relevant public service.
The study also points to existing institutional developments. Presidential Regulation No. 156 of 2024 established the Ministry of Human Rights, while Minister of Human Rights Regulation No. 15 of 2025 established a human rights compliance assessment framework covering government institutions, including local governments.
According to the researchers, these mechanisms provide a foundation for connecting human rights standards with government accountability. However, compliance assessments must be followed by action from the legally competent institution.
The proposed framework would therefore strengthen coordination without automatically transferring every regional responsibility to the Central Government or restoring executive powers to annul regional regulations that are subject to judicial review.
Recommendations for Government and Future Research
The researchers recommend that the Central Government develop a cross-sector responsibility matrix identifying the duties, legal authority, supervisory institutions, corrective procedures, and remedies associated with human rights obligations.
They also propose introducing human rights compatibility assessments during the preparation and harmonization of regional regulations that could affect fundamental rights or minority groups.
In addition, the existing human rights compliance assessment process should be connected to formal follow-up procedures, including deadlines, corrective action plans, and monitoring. When uncertainty over jurisdiction threatens basic protection, a designated central coordinating authority should help ensure continuity while the responsible institution is identified.
Because the article is a doctrinal legal study, it does not measure how frequently these problems occur or establish whether the proposed framework would reduce delays in practice. The authors recommend future empirical research examining civil registration, education, places of worship, public-order protection, and human rights complaint procedures.
Such research could assess whether clearer responsibility mapping improves coordination and helps citizens obtain effective remedies.
The central message is that Indonesia’s human rights guarantees must remain consistent across all regions, even when different institutions are responsible for implementing them. By linking legal obligations to identifiable authorities, corrective procedures, and effective remedies, Local State Obligation offers a proposed framework for making human rights protection more accountable throughout Indonesia’s decentralized government system.
Author Profiles
Toar Kamang Ronald Palilingan is the corresponding author of the study, affiliated with Sam Ratulangi University, Indonesia. His contact email, as listed in the article, is palilingann@unsrat.ac.id.
The other co-authors are Emma Valentina Teresha Senewe, Caecilia Johanna Julietta Waha, Natalia Lana Lengkong, and Merry Elisabeth Kalalo, all listed with Sam Ratulangi University.
The published article does not specify the individual academic degrees or detailed professional specializations of the five authors. Their research in this publication focuses on human rights law, decentralization, administrative responsibility, multilevel governance, and freedom of religion or belief.
Research Source
Article title: Local State Obligation and the Vertical Allocation of Human Rights Obligations in Indonesia
Authors: Toar Kamang Ronald Palilingan, Emma Valentina Teresha Senewe, Caecilia Johanna Julietta Waha, Natalia Lana Lengkong, and Merry Elisabeth Kalalo
Institution: Sam Ratulangi University, Indonesia
Journal: Formosa Journal of Multidisciplinary Research (FJMR)
Publication year: 2026
Volume and issue: Volume 5, Number 10, pages 3251–3266
DOI: https://doi.org/10.55927/fjmr.v5i10.206
Official journal website: https://journalfjmr.my.id/index.php/fjmr
.jpg)
0 Komentar