Act 22/2011 on the State Budget for Fiscal Year 2012 held back the Constitutional Court (MK) on Friday (29/6), at the Plenary Court Room. Case Number 58/PUU-X/2012 was filed by a Petitioner, the Indonesian Human Rights Committee For Social Justice (IHCS), Indonesia Forum for Budget Transparency (FITRA), the Association of Islamic School and Community Development (P3M), Community Initiative for the State Welfare and Development Alternatives (INITIATIVE), Association of Women’s Small Business Assistance (ASPPUK), Trade Union Rights Centre (TURC), the People’s Coalition for Justice Fisheries (KIARA), and Dani Setiawan (Chairman of the Anti-Debt Coalition / YOU).

In his petition, the Petitioner felt that their constitutional rights violated due to the enactment of Law No. 22/2011 and Article 7 paragraph (6a), 15A and 15B of Act No. 4 of 2012 on Amendment of Law Number 22 Year 2011 On Budget State Fiscal Year 2012. The applicant through their attorneys Janses S. Sihaholo clarify Article 7, paragraph 6a judge violated Article 23 of the 1945 Constitution.

"We assess that in the discussion of Article 7 paragraph (6a) does not meet the principles of openness, where in the mechanism of the bill is generally based upon the lobby. And we judge that it contains a charge ... that is congruent with liberalization world regime fuel prices due to fuel price determination rely only through the Indonesian Crude Price and international oil prices, "he explained before the Constitutional Council, chaired by Harjono.

The applicant then questioned as direct aid amounting Rp17, 8 trillion and rural infrastructure fund amounting to Rp 7, 8 trillion as there is Article 15A and 15B a quo law is contradictory to Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. "It raises the amount of legal uncertainty on the grounds the compensation fund has no careful consideration. Second. That the direct assistance funds while the community is closely related to Article 7 paragraph (6a) and is a unity which means that the amount of compensation depends on the presence / absence of the fuel price hike. The magnitude and the compensation is a form of state financial management is not being open and accountable for the overall prosperity of the people on the grounds that there is no clarity regarding the determination of the amount of the compensation fund and the amount of compensation recipients, "he explained.

Justices of the Constitutional Assembly which also consists of the Constitutional Court Muhammad Alim and Hamdan Zoelva suggest improvements to the applicant. Chief Judge Harjono requested that the applicant improve his legal position. In addition, because of an improved legal status of the individual becomes a legal entity, Harjono proceeding in effect on the norms that are used as a touchstone.

"Then that must be considered is if the applicant is a legal entity, of legal rights is different from the right rather than a legal entity, if the person has the right to life and life is protected by human rights, what body biologically have the right to live? Who had a legal entity or its members? If a member, right? So it is also concerned regarding the status of the arguments about the constitutional rights of which are then broken, right? You will defend its rights as a legal entity is or will be defending the rights of others? Clear. Construction should not mingle so, "he explained.

While Hamdan Zoelva requested that the applicant constructs the arguments of the petition. "The reason you request judicial review of Article 7 paragraph (6a) of Article 23 paragraph (1). What you have described here is about the process, a process that far from openness and processes that do not involve the community. Yes, according to you contrary to Article 23. My question is, whether the testing is formal testing or examination material? Try you notice it, "he explained. (Lulu Anjarsari / mh/Yazid.tr)