Some non-governmental organizations which are members of the State Budget Rescue Advocacy Team sued the presence of Budget Board (Banggar) of House of People Representatives. They indicated the presence of permanent Banggar and the practice of astrology or blocking of the budget has a budget of corruption opportunities.

The petitioners in this case consist of four NGOs and two individuals, namely the Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation (YLBHI), the Indonesian Forum for Budget Transparency (Fitra), Indonesia Budget Center (IBC), Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW), Ferry Amsari, and Hifdzil Alim.

In essence, says one of the Petitioner’s attorney, Febri Diansyah, it was questioning four things. First, the existence and authority of fixed Banggar. Second, the authority of Parliament to discuss the state budget in detail. Third, blocking budget. Fourth, the process of change and the scope of the discussion of the state budget (revised budget).

In the petition which was registered with the 35/PUU-XI/2013 case number, the applicant total test contained in Article 11 of Law No. 17 of 2003 on State Finance and Law No. 27 of 2009 on the people’s Consultative Assembly, House of People Representatives, House of Regional Representatives, and Regional Legislative Council (Act MD3).

The articles being tested is Article 71 letter (g); Article 104 all phrase "that is still"; Article 105 paragraph (1) as long as the phrase "at the beginning of the membership of the House and"; Article 107 paragraph (1) letter e; Article 156 letters a, b, and c number 2, Article 157 paragraph (1) letter c along the phrase "in detail"; Article 159 paragraph (5), as well as Article 161 of Law MD3. While the State Finance Act to test Article 15 paragraph (5).

"We saw a number of weaknesses in matters of principle norms that exist in the two laws we tested. Which then issues this norm implies opening opportunities for corruption or other irregularities that later we will prove," said Febri on Thursday (11/4) at the Plenary Court.

Febri revealed, Banggar actually do not need to be fixed and can be elected annually from commission representatives. He argued, the concept of a budget committee that existed before the enactment of Law 27/2009 is still better. "Because of budget deliberations have finished all the commission’s work together and discuss together with the ministries / agencies," he said.

Febri states, the norms that tested the potentially huge opportunities mafia budget and the proof can be seen in some of the cases handled by the Corruption Eradication Commission. One of them, there are budget items that have not been discussed at the committee level with ministries / agencies, Banggar suddenly have the authority to discuss it separately.

"From the facts of the trial revealed that there are processes of state budget discussions that tend to be closed, limited to public attention, and also do not like the discussion of budget legislation. That makes the potential for high deviation, "Febri disclose "Because if there are opportunities norm deviation and corruption, the country’s budget revenue expenditure will not, or fail, to achieve the greatest prosperity of the people."

After listening Febri exposure, the Panel of Judges comprising Chief Justice M. Akil Mochtar (Panel Chair), Hamdan Zoelva and Justice Anwar Usman provide advice and counsel to the Applicant. Furthermore, the applicant is given the opportunity to revise their petition 14 days. (Dodi / mh)