The Constitutional Court (MK) rejected a lawsuit against the provisions of Article 8 letter c of Law 17/2003 on State Finance and Article 7 (2) b of Law Treasury filed by Anton Ali Abbas (Terrorism Lecturer at the University of Defense) and Aan Eko Widiarto (Science Lecturer in Law at the UB). The trial verdict pronunciation Case No. 95 / PUU-XI / 2013 was held on Tuesday (11/11) at the Plenary room. The Court declared according to its function, the Minister of Finance reserves the right to Asterisk Marking on a budget though it was approved by the House.

Previously, the applicant felt aggrieved that his constitutional rights, either potentially or factually, were harmed as a result of the enactment of the second chapter. Therefore, the Petitioners see the competencies of the Minister of Finance to authorize the implementation of the budget documents as enshrined in Article 8 letter c State Finance Law and Article 7 (2) b of Law Treasury contrary to the 1945 Constitution, particularly Article 20A paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

The applicant argued that the budget that has been approved by the House no longer requires approval from Minister of Finance. "The Minister of Finance has the authority to Asterisk marking (budget, red). With that authority, there is a budget that cannot be passed because it was marked by the Minister of Finance when all the procedures to approve the budget have been implemented. Thus, the authority also was deemed inconsistent with Article 20A paragraph (1) and Article 23 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution, "said M. Choirul Anam as the attorney of the Petitioner in this case the inaugural session which was held on November 27, 2013.

After a series of trial and examination of evidence, the Court declared according to its function as Treasurer, Finance Minister is authorized to conduct Asterisk Marking on a budget. Such actions, by the Constitutional Court is justified to be performed by the finance minister as treasurer since the State serves to implementing financial management. The finance minister who knows whether the state\'s financial condition allows disburse the budget or not. However, the Court declared the executive branch should resolve the issue if the authority\'s finance minister at odds with other ministries.

In accordance to concern the authority of finance minister, the Court concludes that it can actually be avoided. One way to avoid the abuse of authority, such as the lack of oversight by parliament and through is proper audit by an independent auditing body.

In addition, the Court actually believes the authority\'s finance minister for starring in the budget is one of the precautionary principles. In other words, the authority can actually ensure legal certainty for the finance minister and the country as a financial executive for Indonesian citizens. Based on these considerations, the Court concluded staple the petition has no legal grounds.

"Decision. Passing, states rejecting the petition in its entirety, "said Chief Justice, Hamdan Zoelva reading the verdict with the  Constitutional Court, accompanied by seven others. (Yusti Nurul Agustin/mh/kun)