A Proactive Transparency in Indonesia and Its Challenges
Yusnaeni, Triana Nurchayati, and Ika Karlina Idris
Universitas Paramadina
Keywords: Proactive Transparency, Government, Public Information
Abstract: Transparency does not only mean opening or providing information upon citizens' requests, but it also means
providing public information in a proactive way. In the context of government agency and public rights to
information, a proactive transparency can occur if the information and data management officials understand
their obligations and the scope of public information, such as a.) the types of public information, b.) its
categorization, c.) the working units that have such information, and d) data dan documentation management.
This paper investigates whether proactive transparency is possible to happen in the context of Indonesia—as
the country has been implementing the Public Information Disclosure Act since 2008. We conducted a focus
group discussion with the Information and Documentation Management Officer (PPID), a working unit in a
government agency that obliges to serve public information, in one of the ministries in Indonesia. The focus
group's objective was to explore whether individuals in PPID understand the act, its scope, and consequences
of the act on the PPID works. This study found that officials in PPID have limited understanding of the law
and proactive transparency. In this case, the biggest challenge happened at the organizational level as well as
at the individual level
1 INTRODUCTION
Indonesia's commitment to upholding transparency
and clean governance began in the reformation era.
Reformation is a historic moment for the Indonesian
people to provide freedom of speech and information.
The Government of Indonesia seeks to build
transparency by opening access to information
regulated in article 28 letter f of the 1945
Constitution, which states that:
Everyone has the right to communicate and obtain
information to develop his personal and social
environment, and has the right to seek, obtain,
possess, store, process, and convey information with
all types of available channels.
Ratification of Law Number 14 of 2008
concerning Public Information Openness Law (UU
KIP) confirms the government's commitment to
guarantee the right to public information. This law
requires public bodies to create
information
systems for the public with the principle of fast,
easy, and low cost. Article 1 number
(3) of the
Public Information Disclosure Act mentions the
definition of a Public Body as follows:
Public Agency is an executive, legislative,
judiciary body, and other bodies whose main
functions and duties are related to the administration
of the state, which partly or wholly fund comes from
the State Budget. And/or Regional Revenue and
Expenditure Budget, or non-governmental
organizations as long as the part or all of the funds
are sourced from the State Revenue and Expenditure
Budget and/or Regional Revenue and Expenditure
Budget, community contributions, and/or abroad.
To encourage the implementation of information
disclosure, the Central Information Commission does
Monitoring and Evaluation (Monev) in every year.
Then, they do an assessment and give rewards to the
best public bodies in the implementation of
information disclosure. Monev team form the Central
Information Commission spreads Self-Assessment
Questionaire (SAQ) as one of the assessment stages.
After completing SAQ, the Public Body made a
presentation before the judges consisting of
professionals. The best public body in implementing
information disclosure receives an award handed over
by the Vice President. In the period of 2013- 2017,
the classification of rank is in the form of the top 10
rankings, but in 2018 there were only 15 public
institutions included in the informative category. The
15 public bodies are the Ministry of Finance, the
Ministry of Communication and Information, Bank
114
Yusnaeni, ., Nurchayati, T. and Idris, I.
A Proactive Transparency in Indonesia and Its Challenges.
DOI: 10.5220/0009400801140122
In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Anti-Corruption and Integrity (ICOACI 2019), pages 114-122
ISBN: 978-989-758-461-9
Copyright
c
 2020 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved

Indonesia, the National Aeronautics and Space
Agency, PT Pelabuhan Indonesia III, PT Kereta Api
Indonesia, the Financial Transaction Reports and
Analysis Center (PPATK), Batam Entrepreneurs
Agency, Election Supervisory Agency, National
Nuclear Energy Agency, Central Java Provincial
Government, Bogor Agricultural University, DKI
Jakarta Provincial Government, West Kalimantan
Provincial Government, and West Java Provincial
Government. Therefore, most public institutions are
still lacking in providing information.
Regarding its relation with transparency, this is an
important issue to be addressed because, basically,
the concept of transparency in the Central
Information Commission Law is not passive, but
active. The activeness of public institutions on
conveying information can be seen from the
categories of information contained in the Act, which
is compulsory information to be provided and
announced periodically.
As the frontline guard of public information
services, the Information and Documentation
Management Officer (PPID) should have a strong
understanding in terms of the type of information and
their categories. Unfortunately, up until now, research
in regards to an understanding of information
management official is still exclusively being
performed for internal organization assessment and is
not published. The Public Information Commission,
which is tasked to oversee the performance of
government agencies in providing information, has
not yet touched the individual level due to budget
constraints. To fill this gap, the research team is
interested in researching the understanding of the
PPID regarding Information Disclosure based on Law
Number 14 of 2008 concerning Public Information
Openness.
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Proactive Transparency
Open government is a concept that was born from the
spirit of encouraging more democratic governance
(Gunawong, 2014). The concept of open government
is still relatively new, so scholars still associate it with
concepts that differ from one another. Gunawong
(2014) states that some scholars interpret open
government as seen from transparency and public
participation, where transparency is related to the
open access to information owned by the government
and public participation regarding the process of
government policymaking.
Transparency is not simply to open access to
information or to provide information whenever
people ask for it, but it must be done proactively. In
2010, the World Bank released a government
working memo titled "Proactive Transparency: the
future of the Right to Information?" In this memo, it
was written that government agencies ideally publish
information actively, either through websites official
other information media (Derbishire, 2010), or
actively open information without being asked.
The implementation of information transparency
can be done at the institutional (macro) level, at the
organizational (meso) and individual (micro) level
(Meijer, 2013). At the macro level, transparency is
related to the commitment of a government, the meso
level is related to commitments at the organizational
level, and the micro-level at the individual level that
manages information.
A study conducted by Ruijer (2013) in the
Netherlands and America shows that individuals who
support the implementation of proactive transparency
can provide better information, hide information less,
and listen more to feedback and participation from the
public. Besides, research in both countries also shows
that individuals who support proactive transparency
have a role in increasing transparency and public
participation.
2.2 Understanding of the Information
and Documentation Management
Officer (PPID)
The implementation of proactive transparency at the
individual level can only Be achieved if the
information and data management officer in a public
institution understands the type of public information,
its categorization, the work units that have
information, and the management of information and
documentation. Therefore, to find out the competence
of PPID in supporting proactive transparency of
public institutions in delivering public information, it
is important to find out the extent of individual
understanding of information management officials.
An understanding of the types of information can
only be achieved if the individual has prior
knowledge of the types of information. The simple
definition of knowledge, as Dvořák said (in Ruijer,
2013), is whatever kind of information we know.
Meanwhile, Ruijer (2013) concluded that the concept
of knowledge is related to the understanding of
information and other matters relating to that
information. "Knowledge is conceptualized as
codified information, including insight,
interpretation, context, experience, wisdom, and so
A Proactive Transparency in Indonesia and Its Challenges
115

forth, or knowledge can be thought of as information
that is contextual, relevant, and actionable.
(Knowledge is conceptualized as information that has
gone through a process of meaning, including insight,
interpretation, context, experience, policy, etc., or
knowledge can be considered as contextual, relevant,
and doable information, Ruijiner, 2013).
In terms of evaluating individual understanding in
PPID, we use the "Knowledge Management
Evaluation Method" (Jana, 2016). This method
measures the effect of knowledge management on
organizational performance and is divided into
financial and non-financial indicators. In this study,
we will use an approach with non-financial indicators
that evaluate "the benefits of knowledge management
to the organization's performance based on the
answers of respondents at the interviews or via
questionnaire surveys and relies to a large extent on
respondents' perceptions of knowledge management
(benefits of management knowledge for
organizational performance based on respondents
'answers during interviews or through questionnaire
surveys, and very much depends on respondents'
perceptions about knowledge management) ”(Jana,
2016).
Our understanding is related to two things. The
first thing is an understanding of the types of
information, including in the category of public
information and the list of excluded information.
Second, the understanding of individuals in PPID the
importance of citizens' rights to public information.
By understanding these two things, it is assumed that
the individual who is the spearhead of PPID can
proactively carry out information transparency
without being asked by the public.
2.3 Information and Documentation
Management Officer (PPID)
The Information and Documentation Management
Officer (PPID) is the spearhead in implementing
information disclosure. Forming a PPID structure is a
mandatory law for the Public Agency. Suprawoto
(2018) argues that in order to create fast, accurate and
simple services, according to Article 3 of the Public
Information Openness Law that each Public Agency
must: appoint PPID to make and develop a system of
providing information services quickly, easily, and
naturally in accordance with the technical guidelines
for public information service standards nationally
applicable; and PPID in carrying out their duties are
assisted by functional officials.
According to Article 1 of the Public Information
Openness Law, PPID is an official who is responsible
for the storage, documentation, provision, and/or
information services in public bodies.
The position of PPID is made clear by
Government Regulation Number 61 of 2010
concerning the Implementation of Law Number 14 of
2008 concerning Openness of Public Information.
According to Article 12 paragraph (1) PP, No. 61 of
2010 states that Officers who can be appointed as
PPID within the State Public Agency at the central
and regional levels are officials in charge of public
information.
Then explained again in Article 13
PP No. 61 of 2010 that "PPID is held by someone
who has competence in the field of information and
document management." In practice, the Public
Agency attaches the function of PPID or Main PPID
to Public Relations (PR). Other Work Units such as
the Data and Information Center (Pusdatin) are placed
as PPID Implementers.
Government Regulation Number 61 of 2010
concerning Implementation of Law Number 14 of
2008 concerning Information Disclosure also
stipulates that PPIDs have the duty and responsibility
in: provision, storage, documentation and security of
information; information services in accordance with
applicable regulations; fast, precise and simple public
information services; stipulating operational
procedures for disseminating public information;
consequence testing; classification of information
and/or alteration thereof; designation of exempt
information which has exhausted its exemption
period as publicly accessible information; and
establishing written considerations for each policy
taken to fulfil everyone's right to public information.
Information Services in the Public Information
Openness Law require a period of response or
fulfillment of information The public can request
information, PPID has a time limit of 10 days to
respond, and can request an extension of 7 working
days. If you do not get a response or are not satisfied
with the PPID answer, you can submit an objection to
the PPID superior.
PPID supervisors have 30 working days to answer
objections. If the public dissatisfied with the response
from the PPID superior or PPID does not respond,
then the public or information requesters can report a
dispute to the central /provincial /regency/city
information commission. The time limit is 14
(fourteen) working days after the time limit of 30
(thirty) working days expires for the PPID supervisor
to respond to an objection. The flow of requests for
information can be seen in the picture below.
ICOACI 2019 - International Conference on Anti-Corruption and Integrity
116

Figure 1. The flow of request for information process.
Source: East Java Information Commission
Information services existed before Law Number
14 of 2008 regarding Public Information Openness
(UU KIP). However, there is no limit to how long
requests for information must be responded to. Even
people often get rejected due to state secrecy reasons.
The Public Information Openness Law provides
certainty in the time limit and procedures for
submitting requests for information. Rejection of
requests for information must be based on
consequences that will arise if public information is
opened.
Information services are not only meant as service
delivery when the public or information requesters
come to the information desk. Information services
are also provided before requesting information.
According to Ulum (2017: 40), information services
which are not based on demand trigger Public Agency
to provide information to the public by actively
announcing information classified in the Public
Information Openness Law as information that must
be announced periodically and immediately.
2.4 The Openness of Information
through the Implementation of Law
Number 14 of 2008 Concerning
Public Information Openness
(UU KIP)
Information disclosure existed in Indonesia long
before Law No. 14 of 2008 concerning Public
Information Openness was passed. This is indicated
by the existence of Regional Regulations (Perda) on
information disclosure in several regions. For
example, Perda No. 6/2004 concerning Transparency
and Participation in Lebak Regency and Sragen
Regency Decree No. 17/2002, which became the
legal umbrella for the Integrated Service Office to
practice disclosure of information in terms of
licensing, and so on.
According to the Indonesian Center for
Environmental Law (ICEL), the concept of
information disclosure begins by looking at the main
principles of information disclosure contained in
Article 2 of the Public Information Openness Law,
namely:
1. Every information is open and can be accessed
by every user of public information;
2. Excluded public information is strict and
limited; Every public information must be
obtained by every Applicant Public
information quickly and on time, at a low cost,
and in a simple way;
3. Exempt public information is confidential
according to the law, propriety and public
interest is based on testing the consequences
that arise when information is given to the
public, and after careful consideration, that
closing public information can protect greater
interests than opening it or vice versa.
These principles explain the extent of access to
public information. The attempt to retrieve it is easy
due to the principle of obtaining information that is
fast, timely, low cost, and simple way. While
exceptions to confidential information or information
are strict and limited.
Government Regulation Number 101 of 2000
concerning Education and Training of Civil Servants
(PNS), formulates the meaning of good governance
as follows: "Governance that develops and applies the
principles of professionalism, accountability,
transparency, excellent service, democracy,
efficiency, effectiveness, supremacy law and can be
accepted by the whole community .
The openness of information opens opportunities
for public participation in realizing good governance
Information disclosure is technically carried out by
implementing Law Number 14 of 2008 on Public
Information Openness (UU KIP), providing
information services to the public as a form of public
service.
Community involvement is a form of public
participation so that the Public Agency is required to
provide true and accurate information. According to
Suryani (2018: 8) to oversee state administrators at
various levels at both the central and regional levels,
the community has the right to obtain information on
the plan by submitting a request for information.
In addition to realizing good governance,
disclosure of information can also prevent corruption.
According to Dipopramono (2017: 238), corruption
can flourish in a closed society and system.
A Proactive Transparency in Indonesia and Its Challenges
117

Open/transparent conditions will make it difficult for
policymakers (including lawmakers) and
stakeholders in government to manipulate, deviate,
and corrupt.
3 METHODS
This research uses a qualitative approach. Qualitative
research aims to explain phenomena profusely
through deep data collection (Kriyantono, 2006: 56-
57). Data collection was carried out in three ways,
namely study documentation, interviews, and Forum
Group Discussion or FGD. In the documentation
study, researchers collected material on
organizational governance and internal regulations
regarding Information Openness at the Ministry of
SOEs. After that, researchers conducted interviews
with PPID and the Ministry of SOEs information
service officers. One week after the interview, the
researcher conducted an FGD.
FGD is a research method in which researchers
choose people who are representing a number of
different public groups or populations (Kriyantono,
2006: 63). The researcher invites representatives of
the Work Unit / Division related to information
management, services, and documentation, and who
have served requests for information or faced
information disputes.
a. To obtain data on the proactive transparency
of the Ministry of SOEs PPID, the researchers
compiled questions.
1. What types of information are in the Public
Information Openness Law, and how does your
Public Agency classify information?
2. How are PPID's Standard Operating
Procedures (SOP) in making information
exceptions / compiling information excluded?
3. How does your Public Agency deliver
information regularly, available at any time,
and must be announced immediately?
b. To find out the extent of PPID's
understanding of citizens' rights to obtain information
contained in the Public Information Openness Law,
questions are asked:
1. What is the PPID's strategy in building
information and documentation service
systems to serve the people who submit
information requests?
2. Has PPID ever refused a request for
information because the person has no right to
access the information requested?
c To find out the competence of PPDI
management officials in supporting the proactive
transparency of public institutions in conveying
public information, then asked questions:
1. What are the obstacles faced by your Public
Agency in building information and
documentation management systems?
2. How do you overcome these obstacles?
The FGD was held on Thursday, August 8th, 2019
and was attended by eight informants, consisting of
representatives from the Bureau of Law, Public
Relations & Protocol, IT, HR Services, the General
Bureau and Public Relations. One of the three
researchers becomes a facilitator who raises questions
above as discussion material such as problem, case,
and incident about information disclosure. The FGD
produced data and information regarding the
understanding of PPID Public Agency on information
disclosure and the obstacles faced by PPID so far in
building information and documentation
management systems.
The results of the interviews, FGDs, and
documentation are collected, then analyzed. The data
is then classified into certain categories. After being
classified, the researcher interprets the data. In
carrying out this interpretation, researchers are
required to theorize to explain and argue.
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
The Ministry of State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) is a
ministry that handles government affairs in the
context of sharpening coordination and
synchronizing Government programs in the field of
SOEs development. Based on the Minister of SOEs
Regulation No. Per-10 / MBU / 07/2015 concerning
the Organization and Work Procedure of the Ministry
of SOEs, the task of the Ministry of SOEs is to
organize government affairs in the field of SOEs
development to assist the President in organizing a
government.
The ministry began implementing information
disclosure by forming a PPID) in 2014 through SOE
Ministerial Regulation Number Per-08 / MBU /
10/2014 concerning Guidelines for Information and
Documentation Management within the Ministry of
SOEs. One year later, it experienced a slight change
with the SOE Ministerial Regulation Per-12 / MBU /
10/2015
Concerning Amendments to the SOE Ministerial
Regulation No. Per-08 / MBU / 10/2014 concerning
Guidelines for Information and Documentation
Management in the Ministry of SOEs.
Ministerial regulates that PPID superiors are
Echelon II Officials who carry out public relations
ICOACI 2019 - International Conference on Anti-Corruption and Integrity
118

affairs and are tasked with supervising PPID
performance. PPID superiors held by the Head of
General and Public Relations also play a role as the
final determinant of policymaking if problems arise
in the management and implementation of
Information services, including in determining
whether the information is excluded or not. Whereas
the PPID, which is held by the Head of the Public
Relations and Protocol Section, coordinates the
collection, data collection, provision, and information
services of PPID. To carry out this task, PPID
compiles a List of Public Information and an Exempt
Information List in the PPID Decree Number KEP-01
/ PPID.MBU / 12/2018
Concerning List of Public Information in
Information and Documentation Management in the
Ministry of SOEs and KEP -02 / PPID.MBU /
12/2018 concerning List of Information Excluded in
the Management of Information and Documentation
within the Ministry of SOEs.
With the DIP and DIK, PPID has information
guidelines that can be announced and made available
to the public as well as information that must be kept
confidential. PPID Ministry of SOEs formed a team
consisting of PPID of the Ministry of SOEs as PPID
responsible, legal, data, and information technology
(IT) division. Information services are at one door,
only through PPID, which in the last 3 (three) years,
the number of information services performed varies.
In 2017 PPID of the Ministry of SOEs received 30
requests for information; in 2018, the number
dropped to 28 applicants for information, and until the
second quarter of 2019, this PPID received 15
requests for information. Of this amount, about 70%
of them are misinformed requests due to a public
perception that the Ministry of SOEs has all the
information of SOEs. Applicants request information
about certain SOEs so that the PPID of the SOE
Ministry asks them to request directly from the SOE
concerned. Based on the documentation study on the
collection of Information Dispute Decisions on the
Central Information Commission website, there are 2
(two) information dispute cases involving the
Ministry of SOEs, namely Decision Number 066 / V
/ KIP-PS-AMA / 2014 submitted by Sutarno bin
Martowiharso and Decision Number 015 / I / KIP-PS-
A / 2015 submitted by SM Hasan Saman.
The Board of Commissioners of the Central
Information Commission won the Information
Applicant's lawsuit in both information disputes by
canceling the consequences test results and ordering
the Ministry of SOEs to provide the requested
information. Information requested in these cases are:
1. Letter of the State Secretary to the Ministry of
SOEs and the disposition of the Minister of
SOEs to the SOEs Energy, Electricity, and
Transportation (ELP) Division for settlement
with D'GAJARA (North Koja Citizen
Delegation). These documents are needed by
the information applies to resolve the
D'GAJARA problem with Pelindo II.
D'GAJARA was fighting for compensation
payments for the eviction as a result of the
construction of the Koja Container Terminal in
1994.
2. PPD Public Budget Plan for 2010, 2011, and
2012 according to the original document. The
applicant needs this information to fight for the
legal process of his rights as a person who had
worked at the PPD Public Corporation but was
dismissed without a clear reason on September
22, 1988, and did not get severance pay and
pension.
The information that must be given to the
applicant in the second case is not information about
the Ministry of SOEs. In the FGD, the Ministry of
SOEs considers that information related to SOEs
should be requested from the SOEs concerned.
Because the Ministry of SOEs does not have absolute
authority and does not have the authority to intervene
in the business of each SOEs. Also, information about
the Work Plan and Budget, according to the Ministry
of SOEs, is strategic information which, if requested
by people who do not have good intentions, will
hamper the operation of SOEs itself. The Ministry of
SOEs claimed to be disappointed with the decision of
the Central Information Commission.
On the contrary, according to Article 1 number (2)
states the definition of Public Information is
information that is produced, stored, managed, sent,
and/or received by a public body relating to the
organizers and the administration of the state and/or
other organizers and organizing public bodies
accordingly with this Act and other information
relating to the public interest. Referring to the
understanding of public information, the Ministry of
SOEs, although not producing information, is still
obliged to provide if they receive or store
documents/information originating from these SOEs.
Substantially, the Work Plan and Budget
information are included in proactive information,
which in Law Number 14 of 2008 on Public
Information Openness (UU KIP) is referred to as
information that must be provided and announced
periodically. Article 11 of the Information
Commission Regulation No. 1 of 2010 concerning
Public Information Service Standards states that each
A Proactive Transparency in Indonesia and Its Challenges
119

Public Agency must periodically announce Public
Information consisting of at least: (d) summary of
financial statements consisting of at least: 1. budget
realization plans and reports 2. Balance sheets 3.
Cash-flow statements and notes to financial
statements prepared in accordance with applicable
accounting standards 4. List of assets and
investments.
PPID of the Ministry of SOEs criticized the
definition of a Public Body according to the law,
which, according to them, is not in the definition that
SOEs are a Public Body. There is only one mention
in Article 14 that mentions Public information that
must be provided by State-Owned Enterprises,
Regional-Owned Enterprises, and/or other business
entities owned by the state. They consider that
actually, SOEs do not need PPID to serve the
community, but customer service because SOE serves
consumers.
However, they considered that nowadays, the
information had become the needs of the community
so that the implementation of information disclosure
is important. Therefore, the Ministry of SOEs
continues to form PPID. PPID unite DIP and DIK
together with the Work Unit, but they do not yet have
an understanding of the information that must be
announced periodically and the information that must
be announced immediately.
When asked about the two information, the FGD
participants paused and mentioned that the
information was already on the website. When asked
among various periodic information, there is
information that must be updated by the Work Unit.
They recognize that there is a lack of understanding
of the Work Unit regarding periodic and necessary
information that must be proactively conveyed to the
public.
One participant answered that many requests for
information had come in, one of them was from the
Infobank print media who requested information on
the State Enterprise Financial Report. Infobank had
requested and given the previous year, but this year
was not given due consideration for asking for LKPN
details. The Ministry of SOEs receives the data from
SOEs, but Infobank should ask the Ministry of
Finance because the data also already exists in the
Government Goods / Services Procurement Policy
Institute.
Regarding requests for information made by the
mass media, the Ministry of SOEs is not aware of a
Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the
Central Information Commission and the Press
Council that the submission of information by the
Press refers to Law Number 40 of 1999 concerning
the Press. This is the case with the information
requested by other institutions, not using the Public
Information Openness Law. The Public Information
Openness Law only regulates information requests
made by the public.
No participant answered about knowledge of the
information that must be announced periodically and
immediately. They answered that the periodic
information had been conveyed on the PPID Ministry
of SOE's website, and if there were people who
requested information outside the website, it could be
suspected that there were certain interests or
intentions. The Research Team found out
that the website contained information that had to
be made available and announced regularly, such as
profiles, visions and missions, Performance
Accountability Reports (LAKIP), and so on. But there
is still a lot of information scattered on the minisite
that should be on the PPID website as part of periodic
information, for example, information about the list
of regulations is on the Legal Documentation and
Information Network, the Whistle-Blowing System is
on a minisite separate.
Not all Work Units have updated information that
must be provided and announced periodically.
Updating information can only be done by certain
personnel; it has not been done systematically and
procedurally because there is no Standard Operating
Procedure (SOP) for the management and service of
public information. Even though each work unit has
login access to update information, PPID also
acknowledged that in this case, the Working Unit also
did not understand how the provisions regarding
information that must be provided and announced
periodically, one of which update was at least once
every 6 months. Information that must be announced
immediately does not exist on the website.
The Request for information from the Ministry of
SOEs enters through a single door, PPID. However,
the work unit is still needed as a supporting system,
one of which is when information updates that must
be provided and announced periodically. It is
recognized that the work unit also does not know the
details regarding the information that must be
provided and announced periodically information
that must be available at any time and information
that must be announced immediately. So far, the
PPID's tasks have been carried out based on the
Commitment and awareness of each individual.
Individual (micro) problems in the form of a lack
of understanding of this proactive information cannot
be separated from the competencies they have. The
PPID Team placement is not based on their
competency. Training on competency improvement
ICOACI 2019 - International Conference on Anti-Corruption and Integrity
120

in Human Resources is carried out in the occupational
fields that are their main tasks and functions
("tupoksi") structurally. For example, in the
Information System Section, they will take part in
Information Systems training, even though their
duties are also related to information service systems
related to the Public Information Openness Law.
Organizationally ("meso"), besides the absence of
SOP on Management and Information Services, the
PPID Team is also a functional position attached to a
pre-existing structure. The main duty of the PPID
Team is not to become the Employee Performance
Target (SKP) for the structural position, and there is
no activity fee. Information management becomes an
organizational problem that results in a lack of
competence and an understanding of proactive
transparency.
5 CONCLUSIONS
Transparency is not merely to open access to
information or to provide information when
requested, but it must be done proactively. In
Indonesia, the implementation of proactive
transparency is under the umbrella of Law Number
14 of 2008 concerning Public Information Openness
(UU KIP). Proactive transparency in the FOI Law is
mentioned as information that must be provided and
announced periodically and information that must be
announced immediately.
The implementation of proactive transparency at
the individual level can only be achieved if the
information and data management officer in a public
institution understands the types of public
information, its categorization, the work units that
have information, and the management of
information and documentation. Therefore, to find
out how the competence of PPID management
officials in supporting proactive transparency of
public institutions in delivering public information, it
is important to know the extent of individual
understanding of information management officials.
In evaluating individual understanding in PPID,
the Research Team used the approach of the
"Knowledge Management Evaluation Method" (Jana,
2016). This method measures the effect of knowledge
management on organizational performance and is
divided into financial and nonfinancial indicators.
Data collection was carried out using the FGD
method at the Ministry of SOEs.
The results of the FGDs showed that the
individual (micro) understanding of proactive
transparency was insufficient. PPID already has a
Public Information List (DIP), and an Excluded
Information List (DIK), but not all work units have
updated information. The information update can
only be done by certain personnel, and it has not been
done systematically and procedurally because there is
no Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the
management and service of public information. This
is inseparable from the competencies they have. The
PPID Team placement is not based on their
competency. Training in increasing HR competencies
is not in their capacity as a PPID Team but according
to structural positions.
Organizationally (meso), besides the absence of
SOP on Management and
Information Services, the PPID team is also a
functional position attached to a pre-existing
structure. The main duty of the PPID Team is not the
aim of the Employee Performance Target (SKP) for
the structural position, and there is no activity fee.
Information management becomes an organizational
problem that results in a lack of competence and an
understanding of proactive transparency.
REFERENCES
Darbishire, H. 2010. Proactive Transparency: the future of
the right to Information. Working paper. The World
Bank. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/WBI/Resourc
es/2137981259011531325/65983841268250334206/D
arbishire_Proactive_Transparency.pdf.
Dipopramono, Abdul Hamid. 2017. Information Disclosure
and Public Information Disputes, Renebook, Jakarta,
24.
Dwyanto, Agus. 2008. Japan International Cooperation
Agency (JICA), Realizing Good Governance Through
Public Service, Yogyakarta, Gadjah Mada University
Press.
Gunawong, P. 2015. Open government and social media: A
focus on transparency. Social Science Computer
Review, 33(5), 587-598. DOI:
10.1177/0894439314560685.
Jana, M. 2016. Measuring knowledge. Journal of
Competitiveness, 8(4), 5-29. DOI:
10.7441/joc.2016.04.01.
Kriyantono. 2012. Practical Communication Research
Techniques, Kencana, Jakarta.
Meijer, A.J. 2013. Understanding the complex dynamics of
Transparency. Public Administration Review
May/June 2013, p 1-8.
Interpretation of Exceptions to the Right to Information:
Experience in Indonesia and Other Countries. 2012.
Center for Law and Democracy and Indonesia Center
for Environmental Law.
Ruijer, H.J.M. 2013. Proactive transparency and
government communication in the USA and the
A Proactive Transparency in Indonesia and Its Challenges
121

Netherlands. Dissertation. Downloaded from:
http://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/etd/323.
Suryani, Dewi Amanatun. 2018. Access to Information on
Public Policy, Nusantara Spectrum, Yogyakarta.
Suprawoto. 2018. Government Public Relations,
Prenadamedia Group, Jakarta.
Ulum, Fahul. 2017. Application of Information Openness
Public and Public Information Exclusion, Publisher of
Herya Media & El Markazi. 1945 Constitution of the
Rebulic of Indonesia.
Law Number 14 of 2008 concerning Openness of Public
Information.
Government Regulation Number 61 of 2010 concerning.
Implementation of Law Number 14 years 2008 on
Public Information Openness.
Regulation of the Information Commission No. 1 of 2010
Concerning Public Information Service Standards
Report Annual 2019 Central Information Commission.
www.komisiinformasi.go.id, Accessed on August 11, 2019
04.24 AM,https://komisiinformasi.go.id/?p=3030
ICOACI 2019 - International Conference on Anti-Corruption and Integrity
122