The Constitutional Court (MK) held a hearing test on Article 8 letter c of Law No. 17 Year 2003 on State Finance and Article 7, paragraph ( 2 ) letter b of Law No. 1 of 2004 on State Treasury to 1945 filed by Anton Ali Abbas ( Terrorism Lecturer at the University of Defense ) and Aan Eko Widiarto (Lecturer of Law at UB), Wednesday ( 27/11 ) . The petitioners felt aggrieved that his constitutional rights, either potentially or factually, due to the enactment of the second chapter.

Applicant ‘s Attorney, M. Choirul Anam said that his client saw the authorities of the Ministry of Finance to authorize the implementation of the budget documents as set forth in Article 8 c State Finance Law and Article 7, paragraph ( 2 ) letter b of Law Treasury contrary to the 1945 Constitution , particularly Article 20A paragraph ( 1 ) 1945 .

Anam explains when the budget should have been approved by the House, the Minister of Finance the authority to certify documents no longer needed. "The Minister of Finance has the authority to pembintangan. With that authority, no budget cannot be approved because it was started by the Minister of Finance, when all procedures have been implemented to certify the budget. Thus, we consider the authority is also contrary to Article 20A paragraph ( 1 ) and Article 23 paragraph ( 2 ) of the 1945 Constitution ," said Anam.

On the basis of this argument, Petitioner asks the Court to declare the provisions of Article 8 letter c State Finance Law and Article 7 (2) b of the State Treasury Law unconstitutional parole. In essence, the Applicant requested that the Minister of Finance authority to block a budget that has been established through the Budget Act or Act revised budget.

 ”To declare that the provisions of Article 8 letter c State Finance Act 1945 contrary to the extent not understood ‘ does not include blocking of budget authority that has been established through the Budget Act or Act revised budget ‘ . To declare that the provisions of Article 8 of the State Finance Law c has no binding legal effect to the extent not understood ‘ does not include blocking of budget authority that has been established through the Budget Act or Act revised budget ‘ . To declare that the provisions of Article 7 ( 2) b of the State Treasury Act 1945 contrary to the extent not understood ‘ does not include blocking of budget authority that has been established through the Budget Act or the revised budget ‘ . To declare that the provisions of Article 7 paragraph (2) letter b of Law of the State Treasury does not have binding legal force throughout the camp does not mean ‘ not including the blocking of budget authority that has been established through the Budget Act or state budget,"said Petitioner’s attorney,Poengky Indarti petition read petition numbered 95/PUU-XI/2013. ( Yusti Nurul Agustin / mh )