The trial continued the the review of Act 17 of 2003 on State Finance and Act 1 of 2004 on State Treasury held again at the Plenary Meeting Room, 2nd Floor, Court House, Thursday (21/6). The trial was the case this time numbered 41/PUU-X/2012 hearing to the House of Representatives (DPR) and the statements of the Government.
Present in court this time two members of the House of Representatives Commission III, Nudirman Munir and Ruhut Sitompul. Nudirman chance to read the information directly related to the House the petition of two students, Denni and Akmal Fuadi.
Nudirman read out his statement that the House considers the Petitioner has no legal standing to file this petition. Because the House did not see any constitutional rights are adversely affected by the enactment of Article 8, letter d State Finance Law and Article 7 paragraph (2) letter j and Article 38 paragraph (1) of the State Treasury. "Regarding the legal status of the House of Representatives of the Petitioners argue that the Petitioner has no legal standing for no constitutional rights of the Petitioners are granted by the 1945 Constitution which had been adversely affected by the enactment of Article 8, letter d State Finance Law and Article 7 paragraph (2) letter j, and Article 38 paragraph (1) of the State Treasury," said Nudirman.
Nudirman continued that the House does not see any causal connection between the losses or causal verband stated applicant with the enactment of the articles a quo that the Petitioner requested to be tested. Nudirman then explained that the Petitioner's argument that states have been harmed by the use of foreign loans up to March 31, 2009 the increase is not the issue of constitutionality. "The House believes that increasing the national debt in no way related and not caused by the formulation of the norm of Article 7 paragraph (2) letter j, and Article 38 paragraph (1) of the State Treasury. Therefore, the House believes it is not a question of the constitutionality of the norm under the authority of the Constitutional Court," said Nudirman.
Petitioner's argument that states related article 8 letter d State Finance Law and Article 7 paragraph (2) letter j and Article 38 paragraph (1) of the State Treasury, contrary to Article 11 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution, the House believes the argument was not proven. Therefore, the Parliament argued that the granting authority is the Minister of Finance to conduct an international agreement referred to in Article 8 letter d State Finance Law and Article 7 paragraph (2) letter j and Article 38 paragraph (1) of the State Treasury, in principle, the authority continued of the arrangements set out in Article 6 paragraph (2) letter a State Finance Law. "Article 6 paragraph (2) letter a of the State Finance Law states that the financial management of state power held by the president authorized by the finance minister as the fiscal manager and representative government in the ownership of state assets are separated. So pursuant to Article 6 paragraph (2) letter a question, minister of finance has the authority referred to in Article 8 letter d State Finance Law and Article 7 paragraph (2) letter j and Article 38 paragraph (1) of the State Treasury," said Nudirman.
While the government, represented by Director General of Debt Management, Ministry of Finance, Waluyanto that the use of Article 11 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution as a touchstone in this petition by the applicant is not appropriate. "The article that is used as the touchstone is not the article that gave constitutional rights and to the applicant who serves as an individual Indonesian citizen. The provisions of Article 11 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution as the governing authority of the president of the powerful government of the country, particularly in terms of making treaties with the approval of Parliament. That the provisions of Article 11 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution contained in chapter 3 of the 1945 Constitution sets out the state government power, rather than regulating the constitutional provision as referred to by the Applicant. With the use of Article 11 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution as a touchstone, it has been demonstrated that the petition does not have a strong legal foundation," said Rahmat.
Still associated with the applicant's legal standing, the Government also agrees with the House that there is no relationship nominal increase in the number of foreign debt with the signing of the agreement problem of foreign debt. (Yusti Nurul Agustin / mh/Yazid.tr)
Thursday, June 21, 2012 | 20:26 WIB 148