<![CDATA[This study analyzes the construction of authority for supervising Regional Regulations after Constitutional Court Decision No. 137/PUU-XIII/2015 and Decision No. 56/PUU-XIV/2016, as well as the dynamics of such supervision from the perspectives of regional autonomy and the unitary state. The study employs normative legal research using statutory, conceptual, and case approaches, strengthened by document based empirical confirmation through data on the review of Regional Regulations before the Supreme Court, central government evaluation documents, and official policies concerning the supervision of regional legal products. The findings show that the two Constitutional Court decisions changed the design of Regional Regulation supervision from executive review to judicial review. The central government may no longer annul Regional Regulations already in force through administrative decisions, while the review of such regulations falls within the authority of the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, the central government retains guidance and preventive supervisory functions through harmonization, facilitation, and evaluation of draft Regional Regulations within the limits of its authority. These developments demonstrate that supervision must be constructed proportionally by balancing regional independence and the unity of the national legal system. An ideal supervisory framework requires a clear separation between preventive supervision during the formation of Regional Regulations and judicial review of Regional Regulations already in force, so that regional autonomy, the rule of law, the unitary state principle, and checks and balances can operate in a balanced manner.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
