Sebagai unsur legislatif, Komisi IV DPR RI yang membawahi bidang pertanian tentu berkewajiban memastikan akuntabilitas pemerintah dalam mengelola proyek strategis nasional Food Estate agar tidak bernasib sama dengan proyek lumbung pangan terdahulu yang gagal akibat permasalahan lingkungan dan sosial. Dengan metode kualitatif, tulisan ini menggunakan data primer melalui wawancara dan observasi, serta data sekunder melalui penelitian terdahulu dan pangkalan data DPR RI guna memperkuat penulisan. Tulisan ini menelusuri mekanisme fungsi parlemen dalam memahami bagaimana DPR RI menjalankan tiga mekanisme pengawasan: debat, komite, dan pertanyaan. Temuan penelitian menunjukkan Komisi IV telah melaksanakan ketiga mekanisme tersebut, tetapi pelaksanaannya masih belum mampu memberi pengaruh signifikan terhadap proses evaluasi program. Hal tersebut disinyalir akibat adanya kekurangan dalam pelaksanaan mekanisme berupa faktor internal dan eksternal: (1) secara internal, perdebatan dan keputusan yang terkadang kurang substansial akibat adanya tumpang tindih kepentingan; (2) secara eksternal, political will pemerintah yang masih rendah membuat proses pengawasan hanya sebatas formalitas. Tanpa adanya political will yang tinggi dari seluruh lembaga terkait, akan sulit untuk mencapai akuntabilitas pemerintah guna mewujudkan good governance.

---

As a legislative element, Commission IV DPR RI, which oversees the agricultural sector, is obliged to ensure government accountability in managing the national strategic Food Estate project so that it does not suffer the same fate as the previous food barn project, which failed due to environmental and social problems. By using qualitative methods, this paper uses primary data through interviews and observations, also secondary data through previous literature and DPR RI databases to strengthen the result. This article explores the mechanisms of parliamentary function in understanding how the DPR RI carries out three oversight mechanisms: debates, committees, and questions. This study shows that Commission IV had implemented these three mechanisms, but its implementation still needed to impact the program evaluation process significantly. This is allegedly due to deficiencies in the implementation of mechanisms in the form of internal and external factors: (1) internally, debates and decisions are sometimes less substantial due to overlapping interests; (2) externally, the government's weak political will means that the monitoring process is only a formality. Without cooperation and high political will from all related institutions, keeping the government accountable for achieving good governance will be challenging.