The Constitutional Court has just decided on the review of Act 22 of 2001 on Oil and Gas, which declared BP Migas unconstitutional. This brave decision by the Constitutional Court clearly contrary to Article 33 paragraph (2). This was stated by the Constitutional Court Justice Muhammad Alim when Muhammadiyah Bengkulu University Students meet on Monday (19/11) in the Conference Room of the Court.

"BP Migas declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court because of BP Migas representing the country in taking care to sign a contract of cooperation in the field of oil and gas with foreign parties. Indonesia resulted in foreign-controlled oil by 53%. Though the 1945 Constitution, especially Article 33 paragraph (2) states that "The branches of production that are important to the state and which dominate the life of people should be controlled by the State," he said.

This relates to the characteristics of the welfare state as part of a democracy. The hallmark of the welfare state is characterized, among which the government set the terms of public interest. "Democracy adopts jawav countries take responsibility for the welfare of the people and therefore should be actively trying to raise the standard of living of its citizens. Idea is embodied in the concept of the welfare state (welfare state) or the social welfare state," said Alim.

On that occasion, Alim also describes the authority and obligations of the Court. In accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 24C of the 1945 Constitution, it is stated that "The Court authorized testing legislation against the constitution, decide disputes authority of state institutions whose authority granted by the Constitution, dissolution of political parties, and decide disputes concerning the election results". "The obligation of the Court is the Court shall pass a decision on the opinion of the House of Representatives regarding the alleged violations by the President and / or Vice President according to the Constitution," he said.

MK, said Alim, the most commonly accepted test case regarding law and disputes over election results. "So far the Court has not been handling cases concerning the dissolution of political parties and presidential impeachment. To dispute the authority of state institutions, the Court recently received a number of things, including the dispute over authority between the President and Parliament pad ultimately rejected by the Court," he said. (Lulu Anjarsari / mh)