---

The proposal of increasing the portion of funds for the desired outcome for the region by the Petitioners No.71/PUU-IX/2011 case, for natural resources, especially oil, is very difficult to accept. As this will raise some specific areas that could be better financial position, but it will exacerbate the disparities between regions of the ability of other regions.

This was stated by the Government Machfud Fingerprint expert, when giving testimony in front of Constitutional Justice Assembly, Thursday (9/2). The trial court was hearing the expert / witnesses of the Petitioners and the government, it also attended by Finance Minister Agus Martowardojo. Finance minister’s presence at a hearing to listen and understand the trials review of Act 33 of 2004 on Financial Balance between Central and Local Government against the 1945 Constitution. "We are here to listen," Agus said after being asked by the chairperson Mahfud MD.

 

Overcoming Inequality

Besides Machfud Sidik, the government also presented other experts include Robert A. Simanjuntak and Arifin P. Soeria Atmadja, each as Professor of the University of Indonesia. On that occasion, Simanjuntak explained associated with the State Economy and Public Finance. According to him, in fact applicable legislation is now trying to address the imbalance of vertical and horizontal gaps. Vertical disparity between central and local, that inter-regional horizontal.

At issue here, Simanjuntak went on, more to the vertical inequity because just look at from the point of a particular area or group of specific areas, towards the center."But in fact much broader implications that will happen and I want to raise here is the horizontal or inter-regional inequality as its logical consequence," said Simanjuntak.

 

Legislative Review

While Arifin P. Soeria Atmadja in his statement said that from presentations that have been submitted by the Applicant, Applicant Fact Witness, and Expert. He concluded that the case is actually not an issues relating to judicial review, but with regard to legislative review issue. Caused by the 1945 Constitution, Article 18A paragraph (2), mentioned financial relationships. However, in Act  33 of 2004 is mentioned balance.

Seeing this fact, Arifin said that what is conveyed by the applicant is not a judicial review. But it is exactly the process of legislation that is not true. "Therefore, the applicant should not propose it to the Constitutional Court, but to the government or the House of Representatives," Arifin advice.

In the end of the trial, the Plenary Session led by Mahfud MD is actually listening to the whole information of experts / witnesses from the government, but because his time is up, then the trial will continue on the next trial. "The trial will reopen on Wednesday, February 15, 2012, At 14:00 pm, to continue the expert testimony of the Government," said chairperson Mahfud MD.

In addition, the Court’s next session will also invite representatives of the people in the area. "The Court at the next sessions will invite representatives from all over Indonesia are officially representing the coasts House of Representatives (DPRD)," Law Court trial over the head.

As reported previously, the applicant consisting of the People’s Assembly Uniting East Kalimantan, Sundy InGaN, Andu, Luther coop, H. Awang Ferdian Hidayat, Muslihuddin Abdurrasyid, and H. Susilo Bambang argued that the Law. 33 of 2004 on Financial Balance between Central and Local Government, particularly Article 14 letter e, which reads, "Oil Revenue generated from the region concerned after tax and other levies in accordance with laws and regulations, shall be divided : 1. 84.5% for the Government, and, 2. 15.5% for the Region ".

Meanwhile, Article 14 letter f reads, "Revenue from natural gas produced from the region concerned after tax and other levies in accordance with laws and regulations, shall be divided: 1. 69.5% for the Government, and, 2. 30.5% for the Region. "In this article," the phrase for Government 84.5% and 15.5% to 69.5% area and phrases to the Government and 30.5% for the region, according to the Petitioners violated Article 1 paragraph (1), Article 3 Paragraph (1), Paragraph (3), and (4), Article 18A Paragraph (2), Article 28D Paragraph (1), Article 28I Paragraph (2), Article 33, Constitution of 1945. (Shohibul Umam / mh/Yazid.tr)

---