Allocation of funds from the State Revenue and Expenditure (Budget) for budget items Sidoarjo Mud Mitigation Agency (BPLS) used to make restitution for any additional coverage area of handling social problems in areas outside the Affected Area Map (PAT) is a form of liability responsibility of the state in order to carry out the mandate of the 1945 Constitution.

This was stated by the Constitutional Court in Decision related No.53/PUU-X/2017 of Article 18 and Article 19 of Law (UU) No. 4/2012 on Amendments to Law no. 22/2011 on the State Budget for Fiscal Year 2012 (FY 2012 Revised Budget Act), Thursday (13/12). "Passing, states reject Petitioners’ petition for all," said Mahfud MD as Chief Justice who is also Chairman of the Plenary Session of this Court.

The Court in its decision stated consideration, if the Government does not take responsibility to address the problems suffered by the people of Sidoarjo which are outside the PAT that was not previously defined the responsibility of the PT. Lapindo Brantas Inc., the Sidoarjo people outside the PAT would suffer no legal certainty.

Article 18 of Law 4/2012 and Article 19 of Law 22/2011 which principally governs the state budget for budget items BPLS, said the Court, of which are used for the purchase of land and buildings outside the PAT and for prevention mudflow mitigation activities, has also corresponds with Law 24/2007 on Disaster Management. "It is thus not contrary to Article 23 paragraph (1) 1945 Constitution," he explained.

It thereby strengthened with Law 32/2009 on the Protection and Environmental Management. In this case, the principle of state responsibility implies that the state guarantees the use of natural resources will provide benefits for the greater well-being and quality of life, both the present generation and future generations. "The state guarantees the rights of citizens to a better environment and healthy living, as well as preventing the use of natural resources that cause pollution and / or damage to the environment," said the judge constitution.

Although the events of Lapindo mudflow caused by natural disasters or not natural disasters, continued the Court, there is the responsibility of the company, PT. Lapindo Brantas Inc which cause damage to the environment, which make restitution to the purchase of land and buildings owned by the people who were damaged by Lapindo mud on PAT and responsibility of the state outside the PAT. "The responsibility of the state is part of the implementation of state functions that should provide protection and security to the people for a better living environment and healthy as mandated by the constitution," he explained.

Based on the description of an existing judgment, the Court found the petition relating to the allocation of state funds for Lapindo Mud unwarranted by law. "Petition of the Petitioner is not proven and unwarranted under the law," said the judge constitution.

The case was filed by Lieutenant General in March (Ret.) Suharto, Dr. Tjuk Kasturi Sukiadi and Ali Azhar Akbar. The three, except Suharto present in this first trial accompanied by legal counsel, that M.Taufik Budiman, Waluyo Rahayu, and Hari Agus. They argued in their petition, right as taxpayers used in the 2012 Budget funding violated and harmed. Because the applicant considers should not "their money" used to finance the completion of the Lapindo mudflow case which incidentally is the obligation of a private company. (Shohibul Umam / mh)