Bursts and mudflow in Sidoarjo, East Java, as a disaster has far-reaching impact on the joints of the lives of people around who also have social impacts. The Government sees the need to mobilize a mud and mudflow handling and treatment of social problems that arise with population rescue measures around the affected area, keeping the basic infrastructure and the completion of the mudflow problem by calculating the smallest environmental risks as well as providing assistance to communities homeless.

Therefore, regardless of what caused the eruption and mudflow disaster in Sidoarjo, the Government believes that in accordance with the mandate of Article 23 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, the state is responsible for the safety, welfare, and a decent livelihood for the people affected the impact of the blast and the Sidoarjo mudflow. "In addition, the government can say that based on various studies and two court decisions that have permanent legal also stated that the cause of the eruption and mudflow Sidoarjo not be separated from the factor of natural phenomena."

It is stated by Herry Purnomo, Director-General of Budget Ministry of Finance, when reading the statements of the Government in a Constitutional Court, Tuesday (07/24/2012) afternoon. Description of the response to petition for judicial review of Article 19 of Law Number 22 Year 2011 on the State Budget for Fiscal Year 2012 (Budget Act 2012) and Article 18 of Law Number 4 Year 2012 regarding Amendment to Law Number 22 Year 2011 on the Budget Revenue and Expenditure for Fiscal Year 2012 (APBNP Act 2012). The trial case 53/PUU-X/2012 judicial affairs and APBNP 2012 State Budget Law was filed by the Lieutenant-General in March (Ret.) Suharto, DR. H. Tjuk Kasturi Sukiadi, and Ali Azhar Akbar.

Based on the above, further Herry Purnomo, the Government believes that the allocation of funds in the budget to cope with mud in Sidoarjo and rescue the economy and social life in Sidoarjo mud embankments as provided in Article 19 of the State Budget Law 2012 and Article 18 of Law 2012 APBNP been in line with Article 23 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. In addition, Article 28 paragraph (4) The 1945 Constitution has mandated that the protection, promotion, enforcement and fulfillment of human rights is the responsibility of the state, especially the Government. It is clear that the state government in particular has an obligation to strive seriously and as much as possible in accordance with its ability to secure and hold the safety, welfare, and a decent livelihood for the people affected by the eruption and mudflow disaster in Sidoarjo is. "In line with the government’s explanation of the above, the government argues that the reason the test proposed by the applicant stating that the use of state funds as provided in Article 18 of Law APBNP 2012 and Article 19 of the State Budget Act of 2012 is not used for the overall prosperity of the people is not true, "said Herrera.

Sidoarjo mud prevention agency (BPLS), said Herry, a body established by the government whose job is to handle the response to the mudflow mudflow handling, as well as addressing the social and infrastructure problems caused by mudflow in Sidoarjo with the smallest attention to environmental risks. To carry out these duties, BPLS financed from the state budget, which for fiscal year 2012, is set at Rp 1.5 trillion.

In line with the main aim of the BPLS, then to smooth the response to Sidoarjo mud stipulated in Article 18 of the Act APBNP 2012 which states: "To facilitate efforts to control mud in Sidoarjo, the allocation of funds in the Sidoarjo Mudflow Handling Agency (BPLS) Fiscal Year 2012, can be used to : a. full payment for the land and buildings outside the map area affected in the three villages (Desa Besuki, Kedungcangkring Village, and Village Pejarakan) b. home assistance contracts, assistance living allowance, cost of evacuation and full payment for the land and buildings outside the map area affected in nine neighborhoods in the three villages (Siring Village, Village Jatirejo, and Mindi Village); c. home assistance contracts, assistance living allowances, evacuation costs and the payment of the purchase of land and buildings in areas outside the affected area map other established through Presidential Decree. "

Similarly, in order to rescue the economy and social life around Siduarjo mud embankment, then the provisions of Article 19 in the 2012 State Budget Law established that the budget allocated in FY 2012 BPLS can be used to control mud flow mitigation activities. This includes the handling of the main dike until such time that Porong mud flow from the main dike to Porong river.

Based on these things, it is clear that the norms contained in the provisions of Article 18 of Law Revised Budget 2012 and Article 19 of Law 2012 that set a budget allocation of state budget funds on BPLS to the matters mentioned above are not totally contrary to the Constitution of 1945. "Therefore, the government argues that the reason the test proposed by the applicant stating that the state budget funds assigned or allocated to in Article 18 of Law Revised Budget 2012 and Article 19 of the 2012 Budget Act is contrary to Article 23 paragraph ( 1) because it is not used for the overall prosperity of the people, is not true, "said Herrera representing the Government.

Associated with the argument of the petition stating that the company Lapindo Berantas Inc. not held accountable, it is not true. The Government stated that Lapindo Berantas Inc. has been asked to take responsibility for social problems due to bursts and mudflow in Sidoarjo. Lapindo Berantas Inc. was required to complete all the obligations and responsibilities to its conclusion. In this case the government has made various efforts to force Lapindo Berantas Inc. in order to complete all obligations and responsibilities in question. "As for the responsibility and obligation of Lapindo Berantas Inc. is the handling of social problems by buying land and building communities affected by mudflow Sidoarjo on the map of the area affected or PAT on March 22, 2007, "said Herrera.

Based on the description, the Government stressed that the provisions of Article 18 of the Act and Article 19 APBNP 2012 State Budget Law 2012 does not conflict with the 1945 Constitution. "Therefore, the Government requested that His Honor Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court to examine, hear and decide upon the test of Article 18 of Law APBNP 2012 and Article 19 of the State Budget Act of 2012 a quo to declare the petition of the petition is rejected, or at least can not be accepted," pleaded Herry. (Rosihin Nur Ana / mh/Yazid.tr)