Review of Financial Balancing Act by the Unified of East Kalimantan Assembly Rejected by Court

The amount of percentage in Article 14 letter e and f of Law 33/2004 on Financial Balance between Central and Regional Government by the former Act is not intended to apply unfair to local producers, but the percentage in the article is in order to protect all the people of Indonesia and their entire native Blood Indonesia as mandated in the 1945 Constitution.

Similarly piece quotes Decision Number 71/PUU-IX/2011 on judicial review of the act against the 1945 judges read the Constitution at the Constitutional Court on Wednesday (12/9). Thus, according to the Court, the petition The petition is legally groundless. "Rejecting the petition I through V Applicants for all," said Mohammad. Mahfud MD, in Plenary Room. As for the petition VI through IX applicant is not accepted.

Petition lawsuit was filed by the Assembly of the People of East Kalimantan Unite (MRKTB), Sundy Ingan, Andu, Jubaidah, Elijah Joseph, Luther coop, each called Petitioner Petitioner I to V, Luther coop, Awang Ferdian Hidayat, MH, Muslihuddin Abdurrasyid, Bambang Susilo, each called Petitioners VI through IX applicant.

They argued that Article 14 e of Law 33/2004 along the phrase "for the Government 84.5% and 15.5% for the region" and the provisions of Article 14 letter f Law 33/2004 along the phrase "69.5% for government and 30, 5% for the Region "contrary to Article 1 Paragraph (1), Article 18A Clause (2), Article 28D paragraph (1), Article 28 paragraph (2), Article 33 Paragraph (1), Article 33 Paragraph (3), and Article 33 Paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution.

But in its decision, the Court explained that the percentage amount to be understood not fully become part of the local government solely because the central government as a representation of the state is obligated to distribute to local governments throughout Indonesia.

While the division given the central and local governments, the Court continued, is through the mechanism of the General Allocation Fund (DAU), Special Allocation Fund (DAK), Revenue Sharing Fund (DBH), as well as other mechanisms, in order to fairness and equality for all nations Indonesia and the entire country of Indonesia.

Furthermore, the Court related to the applicant VI and applicant IX, as Members of the DPD institutionally and membership in the perspective of the constitution, among others, to discuss issues and regional financial balance, then this law is a product in which discussants joined DPD. "Thus, Petitioner VI to IX applicant has no legal status (legal standing) to apply for a quo," said the Court.

Different Opinions

Judge Akil Mochtar Constitution in this decision have different opinions (Dissenting Opinion). According to him, the test article is enough indication that there is injustice in the process of formulating the revenue-sharing portion of the distribution and in the distribution of revenue sharing. To prevent a protracted injustice or an attempt process of reflective equilibrium approach (reflective equilibrium) justice in a system of financial relationships, he said, there should be a change of revenue-sharing arrangements mining oil and gas. "Constituent shall immediately make changes to the relevant laws and regulations," said Akil.

Akil hopes to end his opinion; this case should have been granted. "I think the Court should grant the petition to the distribution of funds for the distribution of oil and natural gas more equitable by promoting the principles of 'fair and consistent'," explained the Constitutional Court was born in West Kalimantan province. (Shohibul Umam / mh/

Wednesday, September 12, 2012 | 17:41 WIB 86