---

The Constitutional Court rejected the petition of the Petitioner states in its entirety in a case testing the constitutionality of Act No. 10/2010 regarding State Revenues and Expenditures Budget for Fiscal Year 2011 and Law Number 11 Year 2011 concerning Amendment to Act 10/2010 regarding State Revenues and Expenditures Budget for the 2011 Fiscal.

"Petition of the Petitioners is groundless according to law," said Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Moh. Mahfud MD reading Decision No. 60/PUU-IX/2011, Wednesday (28/12) morning, at the Plenary Room.

Petitioner in this case consists of several nongovernmental organizations are concerned about budget issues and welfare. They are the Indonesian Human Rights Committee for Social Justice (IHCS), Community Initiative for the State Welfare and Development Alternatives (INITIATIVE), Indonesia Forum for Budget Transparency (FITRA), the Association of Islamic School and Community Development (P3M), Association of Women’s Small Business Assistance (ASPPUK ), and Trade Union Rights Centre (TURC).  

In its legal considerations, according to the Court, the Petitioners’ argument related to the Budget of Health which states that the allocation of total health expenditure not in accordance with the applicable provisions are not proven according to law.

"Although there is a difference between Act 36/2009 regarding the percentage of health budget of at least 5% of the state budget beyond salary with the 2011 State Budget Law for the health budget does not reach 5% of Budget 2011, but according to the Court that case does not create legal uncertainty as referred to Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, "wrote the Court in its consideration. Allocation of total health spending beyond salary component in the FY 2011 state budget is only about 1.94% of Budget 2011.

As for the differences between Act on State Budget and Act 36/2009, the Court argued, it does mean that the President and Parliament did not meet their obligations under the Act that their own form, but such cases are not necessarily contradictory to the 1945. "So the problem is not a matter of constitutionality."

As for the budget-related development of building the House of Representatives, comparative studies, and the purchase of presidential aircraft in 2011 state budget allocation is also considered contrary to the constitution, the Court concluded, the allocation is actually an implementation of the management of state finances in an open and accountable in accordance with Article 23 paragraph ( 1) the 1945 Constitution. Establishment of a budget in the State Budget Law, the Court continued, is a process that is not completely finished, but includes the steps of the open length, which in these stages the President and the Parliament, each as a legal subject who has the authority to do so may consider in depth.

"If in the draft of Act on State Budget has been there the parties harmed by constitutional violations then the parties may apply to the Constitutional Court a constitutional test," said the Court.

In addition, the Court also argues that the petition was not an issue of constitutionality of norms, but legal policy issues the legislators that are open (opened legal policy). Because it involves the determination of priorities and budget amounts associated with the amount of other budgets. Thus, Petitioners’ petition regarding reviewing capitol construction budget, comparative studies, the purchase of presidential aircraft and other arguments in the 2011 State Budget Act was inappropriate and unwarranted by law.

 

Different Opinions

The opinions contained in this decision comprised a Dissenting Opinion by one of the Constitutional Court, namely Achmad Sodiki. According to him, should the petition of the Petitioners be granted by the Court as far as the budget for health. Because, contrary to Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

Citing the theory of some thinkers, such as Jeremy Bentham and Lon Fuller, Sodiki concludes four things: first, the Act has been tested disrupt and interfere with the fulfillment of public expectations that can be detrimental to the public adherence to the law, discohesion enlarge the community, does not guarantee the security of the community. Second, create legal uncertainty, does not guarantee predictability.

Third, it created inconsistencies and constancy of law. And fourth, Morality attachment and adherence to what the legislator has decided does not reflect the morality of honesty.

In fact, according to him, in the December 2011 events in which a patient from among the poor people free of charge, refused treatment at the Hospital Dr Soetomo, Surabaya because local governments have not paid off its debts, even though the funds for the poor has run out. Other news mentions, infants in West Papua, 16% had received complete immunization tolerance whereas less than 5%.

"There are many more heartbreaking events of those less fortunate (the poor). This reminds us that in terms of basic needs alone was not able to meet fully the state. Clothing, food, shelter, health, and education is a basic requirement. Whereas Article 28H Paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution states every person has the right to live physically and spiritually prosperous, residence, and a good environment and healthy and receive medical care, "he explained. (Dodi / mh/Yazid.tr)

---