Akuntabilitas Hukum Pengalihan Anggaran Transfer Ke Daerah Untuk Program Prioritas Nasional Dalam Perspektif Otonomi Daerah

Abstract

The 2026 State Budget (APBN) reduces the allocation for Transfers to Regions (TKD) while earmarking IDR 1,377.9 trillion for national priority programs, thereby raising legal questions regarding the limits of the central government's authority over regional fiscal resources. The government characterizes this shift as a reallocation of the budget, whereas the petitioners in Constitutional Court Case No. 171/PUU-XXIV/2026 view it as a cut that erodes regional autonomy. This article examines the legal basis and the limits of the central government's authority to reallocate TKD, develops a framework for legal accountability regarding such reallocations, and assesses the implications for regional autonomy. Employing a normative juridical research method utilizing statutory, conceptual, and case-based approaches this study analyzes Articles 18 and 18A of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, the Law on Financial Relations between the Central Government and Regional Governments (UU HKPD), and other relevant regulations. The analysis is grounded in the theory of fiscal federalism, the "money follows function" principle, and Bovens’ accountability framework. The findings indicate that the 2026 TKD allocation is lower than that of 2025 across all points of comparison, with the magnitude of the reduction varying based on the chosen baseline year. While the central government possesses a legal basis to establish TKD policy under Article 107, paragraph (2) of the UU HKPD, the limits of this authority remain ill-defined when measured against standards for fair and harmonious financial relations. The accountability structure is imbalanced: the central government dictates the allocation and utilization of funds, while regional governments bear the consequences for public service delivery with more constrained resources. Furthermore, expenditure on priority programs exceeds the total TKD, yet the sources of financing remain opaque, rendering it impossible to verify the competing claims of "reallocation" versus "budget cuts" using consistent data. These findings point to the need for clear indicators of fairness, as well as transparency in program financing.