The advanced trial against judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2004 on Water Resources (SDA) held back the Constitutional Court (MK) on Wednesday (15/1) at the Plenary Court. Muhammadiyah, Solidarity Interpreter Parking, Street Vendors, and Employees (SOJUPEK), Rachmawati Sukarnoputri, Vice Chairman of House of Regional Representatives (DPD) La Ode Ida, former Minister of Youth and Sports Adhyaksa Dault, as well as several other individuals listed as the applicant in the case.

In this session, the Applicant submitted an expert, ie Aidul Fitriciada Azhari. Aidul in his statement reveals water resources should not be just an economic commodity, but also a human right. "Law of Water Resources should be a form of state responsibility for the water to the people," he explained.

Adequate standard of living should not only meet the needs covered by clothing and shelter, but it is also included to meet the needs of the water. This is because water is a standard to meet the needs of everyday life. "The right to water is essentially in order to get water to safe, acceptable and physically accessible can be reached for personal and household use. In principle, the water should be accessible to everyone fairly," said Aidul.

While related to the privatization of drinking water, Aidul describes it as revealed that Muhammad Yamin like squeezing the right of the people with power. In his petition, Petitioner argues that consideration of fraud against the Constitutional Court (MK) in the court judgment case 058,059,060,063/PUU-II/2004 and 008/PUU-III/2005. In addition, the applicant also did not question the issuance of Government Regulation (PP) No. 16 of 2005 on Development of Water Supply System, which provides the opportunity for cooperatives, private enterprises, or community groups to organize a Water Supply System (SPAM).

According to the Applicant, the provisions of the Regulation has strayed from Constitutional interpretation set forth in PUU verdict judgment of Water Resources that had been cut in 2005. Syaiful reveals, in its discretion the Court stated, "so that , if the a quo in the implementation of other interpreted intent as contained in the Court’s consideration of the above , then the quo law it is possible for the proposed re-testing. According to the Applicant, Article 40 of the Law of Water Resources confirms that the development of Water Supply System (SPAM) is the responsibility of the central government / local government, so the organizers of Water Supply System are a State-Owned Enterprises (SOE) / Regional-Owned Enterprises (enterprises). ( Lulu Anjarsari / mh )