Attorney of the Petitioners is reading the petition for judicial review on Law No. 2 Year 2010 concerning the 2010 State Budget before the Panel of Justices, (13/10).
Jakarta, MKOnline – The Constitutional Court conducted a judicial review of Law Number 2 Year 2010 on Wednesday (13/10) at the panel court room of the Constitutional Court. The Law is concern with Amendment to Law Number 47 Year 2009 concerning the 2010 State Revenues and Expenditures Budget (State Budget). The hearing agenda has already entered the preliminary phase.
The panel of justices hearing the case was Constitutional Justice Harjono (Chairperson of the Panel), as well as M. Akil Mochtar and Muhammad Alim (Members of the Panel).
The Petitioners consist of several non-governmental organizations known to be advocate of Human Rights, particularly in the field of state budget. They are the Indonesia Human Rights Committee for Social Justice (IHCS), Public Initiative for Welfare State and Alternative Development (Prakarsa Masyarakat Untuk Negara Kesejahteraan dan Pembangunan Alternatif-Prakarsa), The Indonesian Forum for Budget Transparency (Forum Indonesia Untuk Transparansi Anggaran-FITRA), the Initiative Association (Perkumpulan Inisiatif), The Islamic Schools and Society Development Association (Perhimpunan Pengembangan Pesantren dan Masyarakat-P3M) and The Association of Assistants for Small-Scale Enterprise Women (Asosiasi Pendamping Perempuan Usaha Kecil-ASPPUK). They were accompanied by their attorneys, M. Taufikul Mujib, Janses E. Sihaloho et al., from the Advocacy Team to Reject Law on the 2010 Amended State Budget.
In the principal issue of their petition, the Petitioners reviewed Law No. 2 Year 2010 both formally and materially. According to the Petitioners, formally, the Law was contradictory to Article 22A of the 1945 Constitution stating “Further provision concerning the procedure for establishing laws shall be regulated by law.”
In addition, the Petitioners continued, materially the Law is contradictory to Article 18A paragraph (2); Article 23 paragraph (1); Article 28H paragraph (1); and Article 34 paragraphs (2) and (3) of the 1945 Constitution.
“After the inclusion of salary expenditures, the law a quo still did not meet the mandate of Article 171 of Law No. 36 year 2009 concerning Health. The portion of Health expenditures in the 2010 Amended State Budget as outlined in the table only accounted for 2.2% of the total 2010 Amended State Budget. In addition, the portion of health expenditures in the 2010 Amended State Budget is far from being sufficient, namely less than 1% of the GDP,” Janses explained.
“As the provisions contained in Article 171 paragraph (1) of Law No. 36 year 2009 were not complied with, the 2010 Amended State Budget fails to provide proper health facilities as mandated in Article 34 Paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution, therefore the law a quo is contradictory to the constitution,” he continued.
Subsequently, another attorney of the Petitioners, Mujib, also revealed that Article 20 pParagraph (9) of Law 2/2010 is contradictory to the constitution. “With the delegation of authority to the Minister of Finance to determine the allocation of budget, the practice is unfair therefore it is contradictory to Article 18A paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution,” he explained.
Subsequently, the Petitioners received an advice from the Panel of Justices. Afterward, the Petitioners stated that they will take the Panel’s advice to correct several matters related to their petition. “We believe that the inputs and suggestions from the Justices were relevant and significant,” Janses said. (Dodi/mh)
Wednesday, October 13, 2010 | 12:01 WIB 246