---

TheConstitutional Courtrejected the petition in Case No. 28/PUU-IX/2011 concerning judicial review of Article 6 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) letter b of Law No. 17 of 2003 on State Finance. "Main application is not unreasonable under the law," said Chief Justice of theConstitutional Court, Moh. Mahfud MD, in a trial verdict, Tuesday (31/7) afternoon, atPlenaryRoom.

 

The appeal was filed by the State Administrative Court of Semarang True Satya Bhakti. In essence, the Petitioner filed a petition for judicial review of the State Finance Act by reason of, among others, the lack of availability of budgetary allocations in which the Supreme Court, including security and improving the welfare status of judges; law had to down grade to the position of Supreme Court under President as Head of Government, and State Finance Law as an organic law of Article 23 UUD 1945, as well as a variety of legislation related to state finances, do not pay attention to the position and function of MA financial and judicial bodies underneath.

 

According to the Court, the independence of judges and the judiciary is constitutionally independent institution not associated with full authority in managing the budget, with no associated at all with the President. "The President as holder of power of the state government has the authority to manage state finances both income and expenditure through the mechanism of the state budget after the approval of Parliament as provided for in Article 23 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution," said Court.

 

Based on these mechanisms, continued the Court, all revenue and expenditure budgets for all state institutions (not only for the Supreme Court), established in the State Budget Act as it is for the House of Representatives, CPC, and others.

 

Even so, the Court said, it must be admitted, there are still issues as argued by the Petitioners, namely the lack of: infrastructure court, court financing, as well as welfare benefits for judges. However, the Court's view, the argument was not included as a conflict of norms of Law against the 1945 Constitution, but rather the concrete problems experienced by the Applicant.

 

"All judges are bound by the provisions that require maintaining the independence of the judiciary and should have the integrity and personality beyond reproach, honest, fair, professional, and legal experience," said Court. "Therefore, Petitioner is also incorrect to state that all forms of dependency and attachment institutional bodies will definitely reduce the independence of the judiciary and the independence of judges in a case in which caused the Supreme Court did not decide the amount of the budget."

 

Earlier, in deciding this case, the Supreme Court refers to the legal considerations regarding the legal position of the Chief Justice in Decision No. 005/PUU-IV/2006 dated August 23, 2006. In the same ruling, the Court has also given its views on the independence of the judiciary and the independence of judges. (Dodi / mh/Yazid.tr)

---