Legislation has been set fairly the financial balance and harmony. "There is no disparity between central and regional allocations," said Marwanto as Government representative, the court heard the statement of the Government and experts on Wednesday (14 / 9) at the Plenary Court Room.

According to Murwanto, at least, it has been defined in Law Number 32/2004 regarding Regional Government (Regional Government Law), Law No. 33 of 2004 concerning Financial Balance Between Central and Local Government (Revenue Sharing Act) and Act No. 36/2008 on Fourth Amendment of Law No. 7/1983 on Income Tax as well as tested by the Petitioner in this case 44/PUU-IX/2011 numbers.

He also argues, not obtaining the funds for the upper body by region, not necessarily harm the constitutional rights of Petitioners. Obtaining funds for the yield on corporate tax by the Central Government in full basically will also return to the national interests of regional development. "To fulfill the functions of inter-regional fiscal equalization," he said.

In addition, the negative impact on social and environmental conditions experienced by some regions, especially regions of the Petitioners not the result of not obtaining the funds for the yield on corporate tax. It happened, he continued, more due to mining activity by existing companies in the area. Meanwhile, the associated social and environmental impacts have been regulated in the Law of the Environment.

Therefore, he concludes, that the argument of the Petitioner with the loss of the material submitted is not a causal relationship exists. On the contrary, he argues, Corporate Tax administered by the central government is very beneficial for the area nationally. "Corporate Tax used to fund national development, and distributed to all regions in Indonesia through the DAU (General Allocation Fund) and DAK (Special Allocation Fund)," he said.

To note, in this case the Applicant consists of five regional heads who felt aggrieved over the enactment of Article 160 paragraph (2) letter c Government Law, Article 11 paragraph (2) letter c Revenue Sharing Act and Article 31C Paragraph (1) Income Tax Act. They are West Sumbawa Regent Zulkifli Muhadli, Vice Regent of Mimika regency Abdul Muis, Regent Murung Kingdom Willy M.Yoseph, North Halmahera Regency Regent Namotemo Hein, and Anwar Hafid Morowali Regent.

As for Article 11 paragraph (2) letter c Act Financial Balance reads, "DBH sourced from the taxes referred to in paragraph (1) consists of: a. Land and Building Tax (PBB); b. Customs Acquisition of Rights to Land and Building (BPHTB); and c. Income Tax (Income Tax) of Article 25 and Article 29 of the individual taxpayer and PPh Article 21. "

In essence, the applicant felt aggrieved over the phrase "natural person" within the provision. With the enactment, the area does not receive tax revenues accruing from the Agency. And consequently, according to the Petitioner, the compensation income earned by the region with environmental degradation and social conditions that occur are not balanced, even unfair.

At the same applicant has also presented two experts, namely HAS Natabaya and Syahril Machmud. In expert testimony, in essence, they argue, the provisions of three laws that have been tested against the Constitution. Because, according to them, still do not realize the fairness and proportionality between the interests of the Central Government and Local Government, especially in financial balance.

"Justice was treated the same as the same, and treats are not the same as not equal," said Natabaya. According to him, should have felt the direct impact area of economic activity, particularly by mining companies, obtaining tax revenue sharing funds from the Agency to compensate the decline of social and environmental quality in the area. (Dodi / mh/Yazid.tr)