Testing rules for the financing of the health budget is rejected entirely by the Constitutional Court (MK). Decision Number 63/PUU-X/2012 was read by Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Moh. Mahfud MD accompanied by seven other constitutional judges on Thursday (28/2).

"Passing, states reject Petitioners’ petition for all," said Mahfud.

In the opinion of the Court was read by Judge Hamdan Zoelva, the petitioners argued that Article 170 paragraph (3), Article 171 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2), Article 173 paragraph (1) of Law 36/2009 contrary to Article 28H Paragraph (1 ) and paragraph (3), and Article 34 paragraph (2) and paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution. Against the argument of the petitioners, said Hamdan, the Court found that although the state is responsible for protecting and fulfilling the rights of citizens to prosper physically and spiritually. Therefore, if related to financial resources, budget and finance mobilization system of health service delivery, it does not result in the right of every person to life, survival and development of life in dignity, to obtain welfare, health care and social security to be lost or overlooked .

"Moreover, even if Article 28H Paragraph (1) and paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution is one of the provisions of the fundamental human rights but the amount of the percentage of the health budget allocation is not specifically mandated in the 1945 Constitution as well as the education budget that explicitly mandated minimum least 20% of the State Budget (Budget) and Budget (APBD)," explained Hamdan.

Thus, further Hamdan, the 1945 Constitution does not require legislatures to allocate a certain percentage of the health budget, but adapted to the country’s financial capacity and development priorities. Therefore, the Court is to fulfill human rights in health and social security, the constitution imposes a responsibility to the country without ignoring the responsibility of every citizen.

"In particular the state meets its responsibilities by trying to provide facilities and services best suit the financial capability of the country. On the other hand, every citizen has the obligation and responsibility to preserve and maintain their health. Thus the argument of the Petitioners’ petition unreasonable law," he explained.

According to Hamdan, even if HF Abraham Amos and Johny Bakar as the petitioners feel aggrieved that their constitutional rights by the enactment of these provisions because the allocation of funds in the state budget / budget of less than 5% as stipulated in Law 36/2009, it makes the public service system is hampered health services to the poor, marginal workers are not passive fixed income, as well as patients with chronic disease in general and specifically experienced by the child relating to the constitutionality of the applicant is not the norm but rather related to the implementation of norms that is not the authority of the Court to try him. "Based on all the above legal considerations, according to the Court, the Petitioners’ petition is groundless according to law," he said. (Lulu Anjarsari / mh)