Oeletsala Village Regulation Number 3 of 2020 Oeletsala Village Revenue and Expenditure Budget for Fiscal Year 2020, Oeletsala Village Regulation Number 3 of 2021 Oeletsala Village Revenue and Expenditure Budget for Fiscal Year 2021, Oeletsala Village Regulation Number 02 of 2022 Oeletsala Village Medium-Term Development Plan (RPJM-DESA) for 2022-2027, Oeletsala Village Regulation Number 01 of 2022 Accountability Report on the Realization of the Oeletsala Village Revenue and Expenditure Budget for Fiscal Year 2021,  Oeletsala Village Regulation Number 01 of 2023 Accountability Report on the Realization of the Oeletsala Village Revenue and Expenditure Budget for the 2022 Fiscal Year. This research is an empirical legal research based on events that occur in the field and research conducted directly. The sources of research data are primary data, secondary data and tertiary data. The analysis of legal materials uses analysis to test data from specific to general which is carried out in a juridical-qualitative manner and presented in a descriptive form. The results of the study show that: (1). Community participation is the active participation of community members as individuals, groups, or communities in joint decision-making, program planning and implementation, as well as the process of community development inside and outside the community. The basics of emotional awareness and responsibility. (2). internal obstacles to community participation in the formation of Oeletsala Village Regulations, related to low knowledge and education factors and community work factors that take up a lot of time, external community participation in the formation of Village Regulations, namely related to the role of the Oletsala Village government in building relationships with the community.

Rural and Urban Land and Building Tax is one of the main sources of State revenue for development financing. In the implementation of PBB-P2 collection, there are still many people who are not aware of the rights and obligations in paying taxes, this is due to the fact that there is still very low public awareness and knowledge in paying taxes. Public awareness as taxpayers in paying taxes will increase if there is an understanding of taxes in society. This research is an empirical legal research where data is obtained directly from the research location. Two types and sources of data are used, namely: primary data and secondary data. The data collection technique uses interview guidelines and literature/journal studies. The results of this study show that: (1). Taxpayer income in Fatululi Village is still very low in taxpayer awareness, economic conditions and the influence of Covid-19. (2). The government's countermeasures are still lacking in socialization or counseling to the taxpayer community. Suggestions need to be further increased socialization or counseling to the public about understanding paying PBB and need to be emphasized the existing tax sanctions.

This study aims to analyze community participation in village development in T’eba Village and T’eba Timur Village, Biboki Tanpah Subdistrict, Timor Tengah Utara Regency, and to identify the factors that hinder it. Village development is one of the key elements in improving community welfare. However, low community participation poses a challenge that hampers the achievement of inclusive and sustainable development goals. T’eba Village exhibits a higher level of community participation compared to T’eba Timur Village, yet both face challenges that affect the success of their development. The research methodology employed is empirical juridical with socio-legal and conceptual approaches. Primary data were obtained through interviews, observations, and questionnaires, while secondary data were sourced from official documents and related literature. Data analysis was conducted using qualitative descriptive techniques to interpret the research findings. The results show that community participation in T’eba Village reached 82.61%, whereas in T’eba Timur Village, it was only 30.44%. This disparity is attributed to higher community awareness in T’eba Village and better support from the village government in engaging the community. Factors hindering community participation include educational disparities, a lack of awareness about the importance of village development, economic conditions prioritizing subsistence needs, and community perceptions of the effectiveness of the village government. For example, residents of T’eba Timur Village are less involved because they feel that development programs do not directly benefit their livelihoods, particularly in agriculture, which is their primary occupation. This study recommends enhancing community involvement through education, economic empowerment, and strengthening the capacity of village governments to create inclusive and transparent participatory mechanisms. Moreover, it emphasizes the need for coordination between the community and village governments to formulate development policies that are more responsive to local needs. With this approach, village development can become more relevant, sustainable, and impactful for the community.

Legislation function owned by DPD is still limited, it shows the weak position and role (position and function) of DPD when compared with DPR. DPD does not have the authority to form laws together with DPR and the President and has no authority in setting the state budget. The formulation of the problem in this study are: (1) How is the legislative function of the House of Regional Representatives in the formation of the Act? (2) What is the ratio of the legislative function of the House of Regional Representatives that is different from the House of Representatives? This research is a normative juridical research which can be interpreted as a library legal research conducted based on literature or secondary data. In other words, this research is library research (library reseach), meaning that this research is conducted by reading works related to the issues to be studied and then containing a study of the research. The results of research and discussion show that: (1) The legislative function of DPD has a major role in the formation of the Act at the stage of discussion and ratification. At the discussion stage, although its participation is limited to level 1, DPD provides input and consideration of the bill relating to regional autonomy, central-regional relations, and management of economic and natural resources. Furthermore, at the stage of ratification, a joint agreement between DPR and the President strengthens the status of the bill into law. Although DPD can provide input and consideration of some bills, the final decision remains in the hands of DPR. This confirms that the main role of DPD is more as an advisory body in the legislative process. DPR has greater power than DPD in the formation of the Act, with the authority to take the final decision. Thus, although DPD has an important role in certain aspects of the formation of the Act, the main power and final decision remains with DPR. (2) Comparison of legis ratio between DPD and DPR has different representation. DPD represents the interests of the region directly, while DPR represents the interests of the people through political parties. DPD is present to accommodate regional aspirations that are not always represented by DPR. This reflects that the legislative role of DPD has significant limitations. DPD should function as a mechanism of checks and balances in Indonesia's bicameral system. However, due to its limited authority, the implementation of this function has not been optimally realized. Thus, although DPD has an important role in representing regional aspirations, the differences in authority and rights between DPD and DPR cause their position to be unbalanced in the legislative process.