---

The Constitutional Court (MKRI) did a judicial review of Law No.18 Year 2006 about National Incomes and Expenditures (APBN) 2007 or known as UU APBN toward the 1945 Constitution or UUD 1945, on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 in the Court Room of MKRI. The agenda was to hear explanations from Government and the House of Representatives (Budgetary Committee and the Commission X).

 

Among the audience, there were lawyers of the petitioners, Dr. A. Muhammad Asrun, S.H., M.H., et all and Principal Petitioner Chair of PB PGRI H. M. Rusli Yunus et all. From the Government side, there were Secretary General of Department of National Education (Depdiknas) Prof. Dr. Ir. Doddi Nandika and Budgetary Director of the Finance Department (Depkeu) Achmad Rochjadi. While the DPR sent Vice Chair of the Commission X,  Prof. Dr. Anwar Arifin and Masduki Baidlowi, as well as member of the Commission X, Heri Achmadi.

 

The petitioners through their lawyers mainly questioned the shortage of the educational fund. Initially the Government only allocated only Rp90.10 trillions or 11.8 percent of the APBN which was less than 20 percents as suggested by UUD 1945. 

 

A ‘Squatting’ Budget

According to Baidlowi, the Government did not have an alternative scenario to fulfill the budget shortage for education. Quoting the Vice President of Indonesian Republic Jusuf Kalla, Baidlowi stated that based on economic calculations, it seemed impossible to fulfill the 20 percent demands for education.

 

Heri Achmadi noted that every year, there was an increase in educational funds by nominal or numbers not percentage in APBN annually. Another word, the nominal might increase but the percentage might decrease. If the condition remained as it was, then our educational fund in a ‘squatting’ position.

 

Heri added that another factor in which severed our educational budget was a competition among governmental departments that demanded big budgets, too. He said that “this (competition) caused budget inefficiency.”

 

Prof. Anwar Arifin noted that the 20 percent budget of the 2007 APBN for education as suggested in the Constitution would soon be implemented. “The MK must make a firm decision,” he urged.

 

Good Will and Constitutional Umbrella

In the question session, the Judges, Prof. Abdul Mukhtie Fadjar, S.H., M.S. and Dr. H. Harjono, S.H., MCL asked whether Government had no intention to create a 20 percent budgetary plan. While Judge I Dewa Gede Palguna, S.H., M.H., wondered how the budget was calculated, either based on numbers or percentage. He asked, “has Depdiknas not tried to work on accomplishing the 20 percent budget out of the APBN?”

 

In his reply, Rochjadi said that Government’s plans and priorities was based on promises spread by the elected President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY) during the past presidential campaign. And not all plans and priorities required big budgets. “All depended upon plans that were developed previously. Money follows function,” explained Rochjadi.

 

Prof. Doddy Nandika accorded that Depdiknas had seriously strived to get 20 percent of the APBN. “For this, we have developed educational strategic plans,” said he.

 

In addition, Anwar said that as far as there was no goodwill from the Government and no priority protected by the Constitution, then there would be a judicial review of UU APBN every year in order to have the educational budget matched.

 

Before the Chairman of the MKRI, Prof. Dr. Jimly Asshiddiqie closed the session, the petitioner’s lawyer requested the Judges to call Ministers of Education, Finance, Law and Human Rights, and Director of National Planning Board to the next court session. “If needed, the President of Indonesia should be present, too, Your Majesty!” Said Lawyer Asrun firmly. (NM)

---