Government statement to be delivered by the Director of Fiscal Balance of the Ministry of Finance, Putut Hari Satyaka, in judicial review hearing of Law on 2018 APBN on Tuesday (27/2) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

Provision for budget disbursement of Transfer to Regions and Village Funds (TKDD) protects and guarantees the citizens\' constitutional rights as a whole. This was conveyed by Director of Balancing Fund of Ministry of Finance Putut Hari Satyaka in the trial of the judicial review of Law Number 15 Year 2017 on State Budget of Fiscal Year 2018 (APBN 2018). The session scheduled to hear the Government’s statement was held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Tuesday (27/2). 

The Government is of the opinion that the provision of Article 15 paragraph (3) letter d of the 2018 APBN Law does not impair the constitutional rights of the people of East Kutai Regency at all. The provision, he added, protects the citizens as stipulated in Article 31 and Article 34 of the 1945 Constitution, especially in health and education to be fulfilled by local governments. 

“Budgeting of TKDD (Transfer to Regional and Village Funds) is a fulfillment of the obligations of the government and regional governments in financial relations as referred to in Article 18A paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution, with the aim of public service delivery and public welfare. Large TKDD budget should be utilized optimally, efficiently, effectively, and productively," Putut Hari Satyaka explained. 

Satyaka explained that in order to guarantee the fulfillment of the constitutional rights of Indonesian citizens and the fulfillment of quality public service delivery, the central and local government each year must allocate at least 20% of APBN/APBD (state/regional budget). The budget is used for educational expenditure in addition to teachers\' salaries and official education expenses and 10% of APBD outside of salary expenditure for health expenditure in accordance with the mandate of Article 49 paragraph (1) of the National Education System Law and Article 171 paragraph (2) of the Health Law. 

According to the Government, the delay of TKDD does not mean deduction or loss of budget as argued by the Petitioners. The delayed transfer, Putut continued, is done carefully and selectively so as not to reduce basic services to the public. He added that the delay was made taking into consideration regional fiscal capacity in the form of revenue and expenditure estimates, including personnel and capital expenditures. The delay of transfer is set forth in the Regulation of the Minister of Finance. Due to the delay, such deferred transfer will not be lost, but remains the regions’ right and will be budgeted for re-disbursement to the regions in the next fiscal year. 

"The delay of deduction argued by the Petitioners in the a quo Petition is a form of deduction in accordance with the above conditions, not a deduction in connection with the implementation of Article 15 paragraph (3) letter d of the 2018 APBN Law. Thus, the Petitioners\' Petition has the wrong object, so it should be declared unacceptable," said Satyaka in response to petition No. 5/PUU-XVI/2018. 

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)