Foundation management must always be directed at the use of wealth to achieve positive social impacts

Oct 13, 2025 by thesweetdesigns.com 23 views

Juridical Analysis The Prohibition on Honorarium Payments to the Foundation Trustees in Law Number 28 of 2004 Concerning Foundation (Study of Constitutional Court Decision Number 5/PUU-XIII/2015)

Introduction

As a legal entity, the foundation plays a vital role in achieving social, religious, and humanitarian goals. However, the law imposes strict regulations on the management of foundation wealth, including the prohibition of honorarium payments to foundation trustees. This provision is accompanied by criminal sanctions for violators, making it a crucial issue in the field of law. The case of Dahlan Pido, a foundation coach, who submitted a request for a judicial review related to the provisions of the prohibition, led to the decision of the Constitutional Court Number 5/PUU-XIII/2015. This article aims to discuss in-depth the rules of law related to the duties and functions of the foundation's coaches, as well as the reasons behind the prohibition of honorarium payments.

The Role of Foundation Trustees

The foundation's trustees, also known as the foundation's coaches, have an important role in supervising and managing the foundation so that it continues to function in accordance with the statutes and regulations. Although they are given broad authority, this responsibility is also accompanied by limits so as not to cause abuse of authority. In practice, the coach of the foundation must act in accordance with the principles of transparency and accountability in order to maintain the integrity of the foundation. The foundation's trustees are responsible for ensuring that the foundation's wealth is used optimally to achieve its mission in the social, religious, and human fields.

The Prohibition on Honorarium Payments

The prohibition on the payment of honorarium to the foundation's coach is one of the crucial issues discussed in the decision of the Constitutional Court. This payment is considered a form of transfer of the foundation's wealth that is not in line with the aim of the foundation itself. By prohibiting the transfer of wealth in the form of honorarium, the law aims to ensure that foundation's resources are used optimally to achieve their mission in the social, religious, and human fields. The prohibition on honorarium payments is also intended to prevent conflicts of interest and ensure that the management of the foundation's wealth remains focused on achieving the goals of the foundation.

Analysis of the Constitutional Court Decision

In the decision number 5/PUU-XIII/2015, the Panel of Judges gave in-depth legal considerations regarding the objections submitted by Dahlan Pido. The Court underlined that the prohibition of honorarium aims to prevent conflicts of interest and ensure that the management of the foundation's wealth remains focused on achieving the goals of the foundation. The panel of judges also refers to several legal theories, such as the aim of wealth aimed, which states that the wealth of the foundation must be used solely for the benefit of the foundation. In addition, the theory of social goals confirms that the management of the foundation must pay attention to its contribution to the community. The theory of benefits is also the basis, which requires the use of the foundation's wealth to provide maximum benefits for the foundation's purpose.

Theories Supporting the Prohibition on Honorarium Payments

Several legal theories support the prohibition on honorarium payments to the foundation's coach. The theory of wealth aimed, which states that the wealth of the foundation must be used solely for the benefit of the foundation, is one of the key theories supporting the prohibition. This theory emphasizes that the foundation's wealth must be used to achieve the goals of the foundation, and not for personal gain. The theory of social goals also supports the prohibition, as it emphasizes the importance of the foundation's contribution to the community. The theory of benefits is also a key theory supporting the prohibition, as it requires the use of the foundation's wealth to provide maximum benefits for the foundation's purpose.

Conclusion

From this analysis, it can be concluded that the prohibition of payment of honorarium to the foundation's coach is the right step and is needed to ensure the continuity of the foundation's function in accordance with its main objectives. The decision of the Constitutional Court in this case shows a commitment to maintain the integrity of the foundation and protect the interests of the community. Foundation management must always be directed at the use of wealth to achieve positive social impacts, and existing limits need to be obeyed to prevent abuse of authority that can harm the foundation itself.

Recommendations

Based on the analysis of the Constitutional Court decision, the following recommendations can be made:

Foundation management must always be directed at the use of wealth to achieve positive social impacts. This means that the foundation's wealth must be used to achieve the goals of the foundation, and not for personal gain.
Existing limits need to be obeyed to prevent abuse of authority. This means that the foundation's trustees must act in accordance with the principles of transparency and accountability in order to maintain the integrity of the foundation.
The prohibition on honorarium payments must be strictly enforced. This means that the foundation's coach must not receive any form of payment or benefit that is not in line with the aim of the foundation itself.

Future Research Directions

This study has highlighted the importance of the prohibition on honorarium payments to the foundation's coach. However, there are still many areas that require further research. Some of the future research directions include:

The impact of the prohibition on honorarium payments on the foundation's performance. This study could investigate the impact of the prohibition on the foundation's performance, including its ability to achieve its goals and contribute to the community.
The role of the foundation's trustees in enforcing the prohibition on honorarium payments. This study could investigate the role of the foundation's trustees in enforcing the prohibition on honorarium payments, including their responsibilities and limitations.
The implications of the prohibition on honorarium payments for the foundation's stakeholders. This study could investigate the implications of the prohibition on honorarium payments for the foundation's stakeholders, including its beneficiaries, donors, and the community at large.
Q&A: Juridical Analysis The Prohibition on Honorarium Payments to the Foundation Trustees in Law Number 28 of 2004 Concerning Foundation (Study of Constitutional Court Decision Number 5/PUU-XIII/2015)

Q: What is the purpose of the prohibition on honorarium payments to the foundation's coach?

A: The purpose of the prohibition on honorarium payments to the foundation's coach is to prevent conflicts of interest and ensure that the management of the foundation's wealth remains focused on achieving the goals of the foundation. By prohibiting the transfer of wealth in the form of honorarium, the law aims to ensure that foundation's resources are used optimally to achieve their mission in the social, religious, and human fields.

Q: What are the key theories supporting the prohibition on honorarium payments?

A: Several legal theories support the prohibition on honorarium payments to the foundation's coach. The theory of wealth aimed, which states that the wealth of the foundation must be used solely for the benefit of the foundation, is one of the key theories supporting the prohibition. This theory emphasizes that the foundation's wealth must be used to achieve the goals of the foundation, and not for personal gain. The theory of social goals also supports the prohibition, as it emphasizes the importance of the foundation's contribution to the community. The theory of benefits is also a key theory supporting the prohibition, as it requires the use of the foundation's wealth to provide maximum benefits for the foundation's purpose.

Q: What are the implications of the prohibition on honorarium payments for the foundation's stakeholders?

A: The implications of the prohibition on honorarium payments for the foundation's stakeholders are significant. The prohibition ensures that the foundation's wealth is used optimally to achieve its mission in the social, religious, and human fields. This means that the foundation's beneficiaries, donors, and the community at large will benefit from the prohibition. The prohibition also ensures that the foundation's trustees act in accordance with the principles of transparency and accountability, which is essential for maintaining the integrity of the foundation.

Q: How does the prohibition on honorarium payments affect the foundation's performance?

A: The prohibition on honorarium payments can have a positive impact on the foundation's performance. By prohibiting the transfer of wealth in the form of honorarium, the law ensures that the foundation's resources are used optimally to achieve its mission. This means that the foundation can focus on achieving its goals, rather than being distracted by personal interests. The prohibition also ensures that the foundation's trustees act in accordance with the principles of transparency and accountability, which is essential for maintaining the integrity of the foundation.

Q: What are the responsibilities of the foundation's trustees in enforcing the prohibition on honorarium payments?

A: The foundation's trustees have a significant responsibility in enforcing the prohibition on honorarium payments. They must act in accordance with the principles of transparency and accountability, and ensure that the foundation's wealth is used optimally to achieve its mission. They must also ensure that the foundation's resources are not used for personal gain, and that the foundation's goals are achieved in a fair and transparent manner.

Q: What are the limitations of the prohibition on honorarium payments?

A: The prohibition on honorarium payments has several limitations. For example, it may not be effective in preventing conflicts of interest, particularly if the foundation's trustees are not transparent and accountable in their actions. Additionally, the prohibition may not be sufficient to prevent the foundation's wealth from being used for personal gain, particularly if the foundation's trustees are not held accountable for their actions.

Q: What are the future research directions for the prohibition on honorarium payments?

A: There are several future research directions for the prohibition on honorarium payments. For example, researchers could investigate the impact of the prohibition on the foundation's performance, including its ability to achieve its goals and contribute to the community. Researchers could also investigate the role of the foundation's trustees in enforcing the prohibition on honorarium payments, including their responsibilities and limitations. Additionally, researchers could investigate the implications of the prohibition on honorarium payments for the foundation's stakeholders, including its beneficiaries, donors, and the community at large.

Q: What are the implications of the Constitutional Court decision for the foundation's management?

A: The Constitutional Court decision has significant implications for the foundation's management. The decision emphasizes the importance of transparency and accountability in the management of the foundation's wealth. It also emphasizes the need for the foundation's trustees to act in accordance with the principles of transparency and accountability, and to ensure that the foundation's wealth is used optimally to achieve its mission. The decision also highlights the importance of the prohibition on honorarium payments in preventing conflicts of interest and ensuring that the foundation's resources are used for the benefit of the foundation and its stakeholders.