Petitioners and attorney in the petition revision hearing of judicial review of the State Budget (APBN) Law on Wednesday (8/2) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The judicial review hearing of Article 15 paragraph (3) of Law No.15/2017 on State Budget (APBN) of Fiscal Year 2018 was held once again by the Constitutional Court (MK), Wednesday (7/2). The second session of Case No. 5/PUU-XVI/2018 was scheduled to hear the petition revisions.

The Petitioners’ attorney, Ahmad Irawan, explained that he had revised the petition in accordance with the advice of the Panel of Justices in the previous session. The Petitioner revised the legal standing and arguments. According to the Petitioners, the provision on cutting and/or delaying the disbursement of state budget in Article 15 paragraph (3) letter d of the a quo law contradicts the Constitution.

"In essence, we are saying that the provision violates the Constitution if done arbitrarily. Therefore, in our conclusion, Article 15 paragraph (3) letter d along the phrase "can be done in delay and/or deductions" is contradictory to Article 1 paragraph (3), Article 28A, Article 28C paragraph (2), and Article 28D paragraph (1). We ask that the Constitutional Justices accept and grant the Petitioners\' petition entirely," he explained before the Panel of Justices led by Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna.

In addition, the Petitioner added evidence in the form of the Constitutional Court Decision related to the review of the State Budget Law. "We include several decisions in which the Constitutional Court granted the review of the Law on State Budget. They are our main reference to strengthen the notion that the Constitutional Court is authorized to review the State Budget Law," he said.

The Petitioners are members of the G20 May Movement, a community association in East Kutai District that consists of various professions. In their petition, the Petitioners question the budget cuts and delays by the central government 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. Therefore, the Petitioner request that the Constitutional Court cancel the enforcement of the a quo article. (ARS/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)