The government does not need to make restrictions on the consumption of subsidized fuel for private vehicles of premium four-wheel drive. Government is only need to raise fuel prices of subsidized Premium gradually each year until the price of subsidized Premium gasoline at economical prices.

The provisions of Article 7 paragraph (4), Explanation of Article 7 paragraph (4) of Act 22/2011 on the State Budget for Fiscal 2012 (Budget Act 2012) is an improper policy, unwise, unfair, and many raises issues that hurt a lot of parties. That is a petition for judicial review subject the State Budget Act 2012. Petition was filed by bgd. Syafri, Lavaza Basyaruddin, Nonly Yuliana, and Asep Anwar.

The material was tested by the Petitioners, namely, Article 7 paragraph (4), "Control of certain types of budget subsidies and liquefied petroleum gas (liquefied petroleum gas (LPG)) tube 3 (three) pounds in Fiscal Year 2012 through the allocation of subsidized fuel by better targeted and subsidized fuel consumption control policies ".

Then, the explanation of Article 7 paragraph (4)," 1) The allocation of subsidized fuel is right on target through limiting consumption of premium fuel for private four-wheeled vehicles on the Java Bali since 1 April 2012. 2) Control policy of subsidized fuel, among others through: a. optimization of kerosene to LPG cylinder 3 (three) pounds; b. increase the utilization of alternative energy such as bio fuels (BBN) and fuel gas (CNG); c. make savings of subsidized fuel, and d. improve regulation of the fuel subsidy and LPG policy of tube 3 (three) pounds."

According to the Petitioners, the provisions of the 2012 State Budget Law is contradictory to Article 33 Paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution. "We as citizens of Indonesia, should get welfare provided by the state or the Government of Indonesia," said Lavaza Basyaruddin, in a trial with the improvement agenda request examination held at the Constitutional Court (MK), Tuesday (03/06/2012).The trial for the case was conducted by the Panel 13/PUU-X/2012 Constitutional Justice Achmad Sodiki (chairman of the panel), accompanied by two members, Anwar Usman and Fadlil Sumadi.

Material provisions in the State Budget Law 2012, continued Lavara, clearly violated the constitutional rights of the Petitioners. "With the issuance of the Act, then obviously our constitutional rights being violated," he continued.

Petitioners request the Court accepting the petition. The arguments put forward, Article 7 paragraph (4) State Budget Law 2012 is considered contrary to Article 33 Paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution, and has no binding legal force. Before closing the hearing, the Panel endorsed the evidence of the Petitioners. Evidence submitted and approved in the form of Exhibit P-1 through P-7. (Rosihin Nur Ana / mh/Yazid.tr)