---

Petitioners and attorney in the preliminary hearing of judicial review of the State Budget (APBN) of Fiscal Year 2018 on Thursday (25/1) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The Constitutional Court (MK) held the first judicial review hearing of Article 15 paragraph (3) of Law No.15/2017 on State Budget (APBN) of Fiscal Year 2018, Thursday (25/1). The Petitioners are members of the G20 May Movement, a community in East Kutai District. Rahman is a East Kutai District contract employee (TK2D), and Jamaluddin is a contractor who was hired for conducting programs and activities of the East Kutai District Government. In the preliminary hearing of case No. 5/PUU-XVI/2018, the Petitioners questioned the cuts and delays in the central government\\'s budget for the local government.

Article 15 paragraph (3) letter d of the APBN Law reads, "Provisions regarding the distribution of Transfer to Regions and Village Fund shall be regulated as follows: d. distribution of Transfer to Regions and Village Fund can be done in delay and/or deductions in the event that the regions do not meet the minimum budget required in legislation or delay the payment of contribution required in the legislation." 

The Petitioners claim that the a quo provision has impaired their constitutional rights because as East Kutai District citizens they could not obtain their right to transfer of money from the central government in a fair and harmonious manner according to the law. 

The Petitioners also claim that Article 15 paragraph (3) letter d of Law No. 15/2017 show arbitrariness perpetrated by the central government and that there has been legal uncertainty reflected in the frequent changes in presidential regulations concerning the details of budgets transferred to the regions, which are inconsistent, unfair, inharmonious, and not in accordance with the calculation of transfer funds as regulated in legislation. 

Whereas, according to the Petitioners, the balance of the money transfer is a guarantee of the implementation of government affairs that are mandated to the local government. When the local government has insufficient financial capacity to finance governmental affairs, especially mandatory government-related basic services, the central government has an obligation to provide additional budgets instead of making budget cuts at will without a legal basis. The Petitioners claim that the allowed delays and/or cuts have implications for the lives and welfare of the people of East Kutai District as a producing region. The Petitioners also view the phrase "can be done in delay and/or deductions" unconstitutional.

In addition, through their attorney, Ahmad Irawan, the Petitioners declared that the East Kutai District is currently in deficits caused by budget cuts by the central government. He said that notice about the budget cuts from the central government was given after the discussion of programs by the East Kutai District.

"This deduction led to the activities that have been budgeted and implemented not being paid by the local government," he said in the hearing led by Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna.

Ahmad said the budget the central government should have been Rp140 billion, but was only amounted to Rp8 billion. According to the Petitioners, the loss suffered by Petitioner II is they have not received salary as contract employees. Similarly, Petitioner III has not received payment for a number of projects from the East Kutai District.

Justices’ Advice

In response to the petition, Justice Palguna stated the Constitutional Court could not decide a concrete case. In addition, the Constitutional Court decision is erga omnes and not only applies to the East Kutai people, but to all Indonesian citizens. "So the argument of constitutional impairment is only valid in order to strengthen your argument about legal standing, not to prove the unconstitutionality of the petition," he explained.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Aswanto asked the Petitioners to elaborate the petition more comprehensively on the correlation between sanctions for the local government through budget delays or cuts from the Central Government. This is in order to see any constitutional rights violation. (ARS/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---