By Daeng Supriyanto SH MH
Lawyer and Sports Practitioner
OPINION ON CHANGES TO SPORTS ORGANIZATION LEADERSHIP: THE SOVEREIGNTY OF ORGANIZATIONAL REGULATIONS AND THE GOVERNMENT’S ROLE AS REGISTRAR
Palembang. Berita Suara Rakyat. Com
Within the framework of sports organization governance in Indonesia, the essence of leadership structure legitimacy is inseparable from the normative foundation underpinning every sports entity—the Articles of Association and Bylaws (AD/ART) collectively agreed upon by the organization’s members. Epistemologically, this concept is rooted in the principle that every organization established as a legal entity or non-legal entity has the autonomous authority to regulate its internal operations, including mechanisms for selecting, replacing, or amending its leadership structure. This is not only a manifestation of organizational autonomy guaranteed by the principles of law in a state governed by the rule of law, but also a form of protection for the integrity of the identity and objectives set by the founders and members since the organization’s inception.
The government’s role, specifically the Directorate General of General Legal Administration (AHU) of the Ministry of Law of the Republic of Indonesia, is instrumental and administrative in nature—not normative or regulatory as a determining authority on substance.
Terminologically and functionally, AHU’s primary task is to register data and documents submitted by organizations, as a formal registration process that facilitates legal recognition of the organization’s existence in the public domain.
This registration does not inherently provide substantive legitimacy for the validity of leadership changes; it merely records that at the time of submission, the organization had presented a set of documents formally declared to be in line with their claims.
It is crucial to understand that the formal legality of leadership changes cannot be derived solely through government administrative mechanisms, but must stem from the implementation of procedures clearly outlined in the organization’s AD/ART. When discrepancies arise between the content of the registration submission to AHU and the provisions stipulated in the organization’s internal regulations, this will logically result in objections from parties who feel aggrieved—whether they are organization members, previously legitimate leaders, or other entities with legal interests tied to the organizational structure.
Such objections are not only a form of protection for violated rights, but also serve as an internal and external control mechanism to ensure that any changes to the organizational structure do not deviate from the collectively agreed normative foundation.
If these objections are upheld following verification and review in accordance with legal provisions and organizational regulations, the logical next step is to revoke the Decree (SK) issued by AHU for the registration.
This is based on the premise that a decree issued on the basis of data or documents not in compliance with regulations cannot maintain its validity as proof of legal recognition. However, if the decree is not revoked under the same circumstances, aggrieved parties have the unrestricted right to file a lawsuit with the State Administrative Court (PTUN).
Such lawsuits are not only an effort to rectify injustice, but also a means to strengthen the rule of law principle, which requires all government and organizational actions to align with established regulations.
While the legal process is ongoing, the authority to lawfully carry out organizational functions remains with the party that still holds legitimate affiliation with the parent organization. In the context of Indonesian sports organizations, the parent body with authority for coordination and oversight is the Indonesian National Olympic Committee (KONI).
This is based on KONI’s position as an entity mandated by legislation and internal sports regulations to set standards and oversee all sports organizations at the national, provincial, and district/city levels.
One common misconception in public discourse is the view that AHU decrees are the “highest authority” or regulations that take precedence over other rules applicable in the sports sector. Normatively and hierarchically, this cannot be legally justified.
AHU decrees are merely products of an administrative registration process and do not take precedence over regulations such as the Minister of Youth and Sports Decree (Permenpora), KONI’s AD/ART, or the respective AD/ART of individual sports organizations.
This position is based on the principle that regulations governing the substantive governance of sports organizations must originate from institutions or entities with specific authority in the field, not from bodies tasked solely with administrative registration. Therefore, any action or decision related to a sports organization must always be measured against its compliance with these more substantive regulations, not just the presence of an AHU registration decree.
