The trial continued testing of Law Number 22 Year 2001 regarding Oil and Gas (Oil and Gas Law) held back the Constitutional Court (MK) on Thursday (24/5) at the Plenary Court Room. Session No. 36/PUU-X/2012 case with Constitutional Court, chaired by M. Akil Mochtar was filed by several public and private organizations, including Muhammadiyah, Indonesia Hizb Siyasiyah Standing Committee, Union of Islamic Ummah PP, PP Syarikat Islam Indonesia, the Muslim Brotherhood Indonesia PP, Al Ershad Al Islamiyah and other individual applicants.

The court heard the testimony in the Government and Parliament, the Government represented by Evita Legowo revealed that the applicant does not meet the qualifications of the Constitutional Court Regulation Number 06/PMK/2008 because there is no constitutional harm to the applicant. "Petitioner argues that the oil and gas law has created legal uncertainty. According to the Government, there is no causal relationship with the applicant’s arguments against the article described that serve as the touchstone of the Petitioner. The applicant does not meet the qualifications that meet legal standing. For this reason, according to the Government, it is appropriate to request the Assembly Constitutional Court declared the applicant is not acceptable, "said Evita before the Constitutional Assembly.

According to Evita, Oil and Gas Law is designed with several goals. The goal, said Evita, among them implemented and controlled to ensure the natural resources of oil and gas as strategic. "In addition, oil and gas law also aims to increase state revenues and contribute maximally to the country’s economy and improve people’s welfare," he explained.

Regarding the rules of contract in the oil and gas law, Evita explains there are two kinds of contracts in oil and gas law, the service contract and the contract for the results. Contractual services, certainly Evita, kontraktorlah paid. While the production sharing contracts, continued Evita, both the Government and contractors gain a following. "The count for the results to petroleum, the government gets 85% and the contractor gets 15%. Meanwhile, for natural gas, the Government get 75%, and the contractor gets 25%," he explained.

Evita also explains the presence of BP Migas. "BP Migas only serves as a control. It is intended that the state does not fall directly in the (deal) contract. "This is so there is no equivalent position between the contractor and the state as it entered into the civil and criminal," he said. 

In the main petition, Petitioner argued that Article 1 number 19 and 23, Article 3 letter b, Article 4 paragraph (3), Article 6 paragraph (1), Article 9 paragraph (1), Article 10 paragraph (1), Article 11 paragraph ( 2), Article 13 paragraph (1), and Article 44 paragraph (1) oil and gas law violates constitutional rights guaranteed by Article 1 paragraph (2), Article 11 paragraph (2), Article 20A paragraph (1), Article 28C paragraph (2), Article 28D paragraph (1), Article 28H Paragraph (1), and Article 33 paragraph (2) and (3) of the 1945 Constitution. According to Petitioners, the oil and gas law has been deemed demeaning and insulting the state sovereignty of the people as mandated by the Constitution. Therefore, the state has already resulted in the same position with foreign companies in oil and gas management contracts in Indonesia. (Lulu Anjarsari / mh/Yazid.tr)