Petitioners’ attorney Irwan present in the ruling hearing of the judicial review of the State Budget (APBN) Law, Thursday (13/12) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The Constitutional Court (MK) rejected the entire petition submitted by Rahman, an East Kutai District local contract employee (TK2D) in Decision Number 5/PUU-XVI/2018 on Law Number 15 of 2017 on the 2018 State Budget, read by Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Anwar Usman in the presence of the other eight constitutional justices, on Thursday (13/12). 

The G20 May Movement and other individuals are petitioners of the case. In the petition, the Petitioners elaborated that the a quo provision had been detrimental to their constitutional rights because they could not obtain their right as East Kutai District community to transfer of money from the central government in a fair and harmonious manner according to the law. The Petitioners also claimed that Article 15 paragraph (3) letter d of the State Budget Law showed arbitrariness perpetrated by the central government and that there had been legal uncertainty reflected in the frequent changes in presidential regulations concerning the details of budget transferred to the local governments, which was inconsistent, unfair, inharmonious, and not in accordance with the calculation of transfer funds as regulated in the legislation. 

In the legal considerations read by Deputy Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Aswanto , the Court affirmed that the provisions of Article 15 paragraph (3) letter d of the State Budget Law constituted an instrument of sanction whose function was to compel the local governments to comply with the provisions. This, he added, was part of the oversight function by the central government of regional financial management as well as one of the strategies for managing state finances to achieve the greatest prosperity of the people. He added that such sanctions would certainly have a deterrent effect to improve regional financial management in carrying out its duties. 

"However, such a consequence is not a constitutional loss as argued by the Petitioners, who related the loss to loss of legal certainty, development, employment, welfare, life, and decent living as mandated in Article 28A and 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. Basically, there are deductions and/or delays as one of the government oversight mechanisms on regional government function in order to be able to properly, effectively, and efficiently carry out public services, especially in the fields of education, health, and village funds," Justice Aswanto explained. 

In addition, the Court considered the sanctions to the local governments as regulated in Article 15 paragraph (3) letter d of the State Budget Law a hard-budget constraint policy to avoid the negative impacts of loose decentralization policies, in order to realize the main objective of regional autonomy, namely accelerating the realization of local community welfare. 

Regarding TKDD that provides sanctions for local governments that have unusual amounts of cash and/or deposits in banks, conversion of revenue sharing fund (DBH) and/or general allocation fund (DAU) is carried out non-cash. According to the Court, in accordance with the mandate of the Constitution that the state budget, including the regional budget, must be carried out openly and responsibly for the greatest prosperity of the people, if there is regional cash or savings in the bank accumulating in an unusual amount, it will hinder regional development and the implementation of regional autonomy, and so does not provide certainty and protection for the people, especially in the regions, to be able to enjoy the results of development.

"Considering, according to the Court, the arguments of the Petitioners, that Article 15 paragraph (3) letter d of the State Budget are unconstitutional because they are contrary to Article 1 paragraph (3), Article 18A paragraph (2), Article 28A, and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the Constitution 1945, is unreasonable according to law," said Aswanto. 

In relation to theG20 May Movement, the Court considered that the Petitioners had no legal standing, thus the petition could not be accepted. (Lulu Anjarsari/Yuniar Widiastuti)