---

The Petitioner’s attorney Sigit Nugroho Sudibyanto delivering the subjects of the petition of the judicial review of the Law on Fiscal Decentralization between Central and Regional Governments through video conference, Tuesday (11/8) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Gani.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) held a judicial review hearing of Article 19 paragraph (2) letter b and paragraph (3) letter b and Article 20 paragraph (2) letter b of Law No. 33 of 2004 on Fiscal Decentralization between Central and Regional Governments. The preliminary hearing of case No. 63/PUU-XVIII/2020 took place on Tuesday, August 11, 2020, with presiding justices Arief Hidayat along with Manahan M.P. Sitompul and Saldi Isra. The petition was filed by nine petitioners: the Civil Society Alliance of Blora, Sujad, Umar Ma’ruf, Jalal Umaruddin, Susanto Rahardjo, Febrian Candra Widya Atmaja, Exi Agus Wijaya, the Indonesian Anticorruption Community (MAKI), and the Law Enforcement Monitoring Institute (LP3HI).

The Petitioner’s attorney Sigit Nugroho Sudibyanto said that the Petitioners, associations and individual citizens of various professions, argued that the phrase “the producing regency/city” in the articles being reviewed has led to regencies/cities in certain working territories (WK) to not receive revenue sharing fund (DBH) while Article 1 number 14 of Law No. 22 of 2001 on Oil and Natural Gas reads, “Working Territory shall be a certain area within the Indonesian Legal Mining Territory for the execution of Exploration and Exploitation.” He added that this means before exploitation, exploration is done on the territory of the producing regency/city. The exploitation of mining resources should improve the people’s welfare, including the producing regency/city.

Therefore, the Petitioners argued that the a quo article contradicts Article 33 paragraphs (3) and (4) of the 1945 Constitution. "So, the loss suffered by the Petitioners is the unfair distribution of [revenue sharing fund] based on the [phrase] ‘the producing regency/city,’ which resulted in Blora Regency not receiving [revenue sharing fund] for the prosperity and welfare of [its] people," Sigit said via video conference from Universitas Sebelas Maret (UNS).

Within Working Territory 

Attorney Utomo Kurniawan added that issues arose when the oil and natural gas resources include another province, leading to only “the producing regency/city” and regions within the working territories receive revenue sharing fund, while regions outside of “the producing regency/city” are excluded.

The drilling of the Cepu Block was carried out at Banyu Urip field, Mojodelik Village, Gayam Bojonegoro Sub-district, East Java Province. Consequently, Blora Regency has never received revenue sharing fund because it is based on the area where the oil and gas exploitation and production wells are located. In fact, Utomo explained, Blora and Bojonegoro Regencies are only separated by Bengawan Solo River. Parts of Blora and Bojonegoro Regencies are within the Cepu Block. Thus, he added, Blora Regency should have received revenue sharing fund from the Cepu Block’s oil and gas production. 

"Therefore, the discrimination relating to the revenue sharing fund of oil and gas doesn’t reflect national economic unity within the [Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia] and joint economic activities based on the principle of kinship. This has resulted in asymmetric decentralization. This is also detrimental to the Petitioners’ constitutional rights to equal treatment before the law," he explained. 

For this reason, the Petitioners requested that the constitutional justices declare Article 19 paragraph (2) letter b, paragraph (3) letter b, and Article 20 paragraph (2) letter b of Law No. 33 of 2004 unconstitutional and not legally binding insofar as it is not interpreted as "Regency/City is included in producing Working Area (WK) that possesses these Natural Resources Reserves." 

Legal Standing

Constitutional Justice Manahan questioned the legal standing of the petitioners who represent organizations in and out of court. He advised that each petitioner who are individual citizens distinguish their constitutional damage. He also questioned the interests of those organizations and individuals in the enactment of the a quo law, given that it concerns the relations between central and regional governments, thus the regional government is one with legal standing to file for the petition. “What if the [petition’s argument] is denied by the regional government?” he asked.

Constitutional Justice Saldi emphasized that the Petitioners should elaborate on their actual and/or potential constitutional damage, especially in relation to articles in the 1945 Constitution. "It is highly possible that civil society alliances or legal entities suffer different losses from individuals. It is important that if the Petitioners do not have legal standing, the Court will not consider the subjects of the petition," he said.

Constitutional Justice Arief stressed that the Petitioners should explain the legal subjects that filed the petition, that is, legal entities and individual citizens. "The Court needs an explanation, not only with regard to the concrete case but also the underlying reasons, such as that regional autonomy serves to improve welfare but there is an unfair distribution of regional natural resources," he said.

Before concluding the session, Justice Arief reminded the Petitioners to submit a revised petition no later than Monday, August 24, 2020 at 13:00 WIB to the Registrar’s Office of the Constitutional Court. (*)

Writer: Sri Pujianti
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari
PR: M. Halim
Photographer: Gani
Translator: Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 8/12/2020 16:05 WIB

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case where any differences occur between the English and the Indonesian version, the Indonesian version will prevail.

---