Finance Minister Sri Mulyani Indrawati representing the president to give a testimony virtually at the judicial review hearing of the Law on the COVID-19 Pandemic, Thursday (8/10). Photo by Humas MK/Gani.
JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The judicial review hearing of Law No. 2 of 2020 on the Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 1 of 2020 regarding the Stipulation of the State’s Financial Policy and Fiscal Stability for the Mitigation of the COVID-19 Pandemic and/or in Order to Face Threats That Endanger the National Economy and/or the Financial System’s Stability into Law was held by the Constitutional Court on Thursday, October 8, 2020. The hearing was for seven cases: No. 37/PUU-XVIII/2020, No. 42/PUU-XVIII/2020, No. 43/PUU-XVIII/2020, No. 45/PUU-XVIII/2020, No. 47/PUU-XVIII/2020, No. 49/PUU-XVIII/2020, and No. 75/PUU-XVIII/2020. The hearing had been scheduled to hear the testimonies of the House (DPR) and the president.
Finance Minister Sri Mulyani Indrawati, who represented the president at the hearing virtually, said that the state must be able to guarantee protection for all citizens, both in normal and abnormal or extraordinary conditions. The protection is not limited to protection from physical threats, but also of all aspects of life. The state must be able to protect all the nation’s elements from all threats that endanger the state and society including threats to the national economy and/or financial stability that impact social, economic, political, and social welfare, with all available resources.
“The current COVID-19 pandemic has actually had extraordinarily significant impacts, affecting the social and economic life of all people in the world, and has even claimed millions of lives including of the Indonesian people. It is uncertain when the COVID-19 pandemic will end. Not a single country in the world is free from COVID-19. Thus, we need mutual cooperation from all authorities in the economic and financial sectors in facing this very real threat,” she said reading out the president’s/Government’s statement.
The Government’s stance was that the COVID-19 Law is actually intended to provide protection for people's lives, which were really threatened by the spread of COVID-19 in terms of mental and physical health, safety, and social and economy.
"All policies in Law No. 2 of 2020, especially the state financial policy currently being implemented, are based on factual data on the impacts of COVID-19 on society and state due to Indonesia’s exposure to COVID-19. It is necessary to save the community swiftly by preparing medical assistance and social assistance, as well as supporting the economy to fulfill livelihood and aid the business world, especially small and medium enterprises," she explained to the panel chaired by Chief Justice Anwar Usman. The Government is of the opinion that the COVID-19 Law doesn’t at all harm the constitutional rights of the Petitioners.
Almost all articles in the Appendix to the COVID-19 Law are petitioned for review. The Government provides a statement on the issues raised by the Petitioners: 1) The need for House approval as a budgeting and controlling function; 2) Formal review; 3) The scope and period of effect; 4) State financial policies covering deficit rise, national economic recovery, taxation, customs, government bonds and/or government sharia bonds, mandatory pending adjustments, use of educational endowments, regional financial policies; 5) State financial policies; 6) Financial stability system policy covering the authority of LPS (Deposit Insurance Corporation) and OJK (Financial Services Authority); 7) Legal protection; and 8) Synchronization between Law No. 2/2020 and other affected laws.
"House approval as a budgeting and controlling function has been fulfilled, even though the policies in the Appendix to Law No. 2 of 2020 was initially stipulated by the president as the executor of Article 22 of the 1945 Constitution, with the stipulation of Perppu [Government Regulation in Lieu of Law] No. 1/2020 into Law No. 2 of 2020 through discussions following procedural of the formation of a law. So, the policies in Law No. 2 of 2020 received approval from the House. This shows that the House agree with the Government regarding the urgency of policies and actions in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. In accordance with the provisions of Article 22 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution, the perppu must get approval from the House after it is promulgated,” Sri Mulyani explained.
In relation to the authority to increase the state budget deficit beyond the 3% gross domestic product (GDP) limit, the Government stated that it isn’t supposed to be arbitrary. Rather, it was intended to give the state the ability to manage the health crisis and its domino effect. The ability and flexibility to handle health, social, and economic issues will be implemented in a measured and careful manner based on good governancec, accountability, and transparency.
Sri Mulyani explained that the 6.34% deficit in the 2020 State Budget is intended to fund various COVID-19 programs and its socio-economic and financial impacts. In Presidential Decree No. 72 of 2020, the deficit includes funds for national economic recovery, including: 1) Health program at Rp87.56 trillion, realization at Rp21.92 trillion or 25%; 2) Social protection Rp203.91 trillion, realization at Rp157.03 trillion or 77%; 3) business incentives Rp120.61 trillion, realization at Rp28.087 trillion or 23.3%; 4) UMKM (MSME) assistance Rp123.47 trillion, realization at Rp81.85 trillion or 66.3%; 5) Corporate financing Rp53.6 trillion, no realization yet; 6) Sectoral assistance by the central government and regional governments Rp106.05 trillion, realization at Rp26.61 trillion or 25.1%.
"It can be seen that the largest portion is social protection. This is in response to the economic slowdown and the PSBB [large-scale social restrictions], which have hit the economic capacity of our people significantly, followed by stimulus for MSMEs and business incentives, as well as a budget for sectoral assistance and local governments. Even though the budget for health is not the largest, its adequacy was calculated for health expenditure and management, including for incentives for health workers, purchasing medical devices such as PPE, rapid tests, reagents, construction of hospitals, health facilities and infrastructure, Healthcare BPJS [social security] subsidies, incentives for medical personnel, death benefits for health workers, tax exemptions, as well as import duties on medical devices," she said.
Also read:
NGOs and Researchers Challenge COVID-19 Law
Petitioners of COVID-19 Law Reaffirm Arguments
The petition No. 37/PUU-XVIII/2020 was filed by the Indonesian Foundation to Strengthen Civil Society's Participation, Partnership, and Initiatives (YAPPIKA); Desiana Samosir; Muhammad Maulana; and Syamsuddin Alimsyah. Their reasons for the formal judicial review petition are: first, the Regional Representatives Council (DPD) was not involved in the discussion to determine whether the COVID-19 Perppu was approved or not; second, the virtual House (DPR) meeting was likely not have been attended by MPs.
Also read:
Provision on State Financial Policy for COVID-19 Mitigation Challenged
Petitioners of COVID-19 Mitigation Law Strengthen Legal Argument
The Petitioners of case No. 42/PUU-XVIII/2020, Iwan Sumule and the other 49 Pro-Democracy (ProDem) activists, argue that if the COVID-19 Law and its appendix are enacted, there will be no more discussions on the revised state budget (APBN-P) between the Government and the House as the president can revise the details of the state budget and stipulate that revision unilaterally in a presidential regulation, while Article 23C of the 1945 Constitution mandates that all matters related to the state finances be regulated with a law, not a presidential regulation.
The Petitioners of case No. 43/PUU-XVIII/2020, Ahmad Sabri Lubis and 9 other individuals, argued that Perppu No. 1 of 2020, which is stipulated in Law No. 2 of 2020, doesn’t regulate the “compelling crisis situation” clearly and rather focuses on the Government’s authority to set the state budget deficit beyond the 3% GDP limit until fiscal year 2023.
The Petitioner of case No. 45/PUU-XVIII/2020 Sururudin argues that Article 2 and Article 12 paragraph (2) of the COVID-19 Law gives the president a great power to manage state finances without involving the House from 2020 to 2023. It is contrary to the scope referred to in Chapter I Article 1 of the a quo law, which clearly regulates the state’s need of the 2020 budget to implement the administration. However, Article 2 paragraph (1) letter a gives the Government the authority to exclude the House in managing state finances until 2023.
Also read:
Village Funds Delayed, Two Village Chiefs Challenge COVID-19 Law
Village Heads Add Village Consultative Body as Petitioner of COVID-19 Law
The Petitioners of case No. 47/PUU-XVIII/2020, village heads and village consultative bodies members Triono and 26 others, understand that the funds might be delayed or redirected to other causes due to COVID-19, but stated that it would be problematic if village funds were to be declared null relating to state financial policies for COVID-19 mitigation and/or in order to face threats that endanger the national economy. They also believe that Article 28 paragraph (8) of the COVID-19 Law is not in accordance with Article 2 paragraph (1) letter l, which doesn’t specify that the pandemic will motivate the central government to eliminate village funds.
The Petitioner of case No. 49/PUU-XVIII/2020, advocate Damai Hari Lubis, challenges the provision on state budget in the a quo perppu, which has to refer to the principles stipulated in Article 23 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, especially on the transparency and accountability of the use of the state budget for the people’s welfare, which cannot be interpreted in exclusive conditions but in any condition. He believes the enactment of Article 27 paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of the COVID-19 Law disregards any abuse by public officials in using the state budget for COVID-19 mitigation, which will lead to legal setbacks.
Also read:
Law on COVID-19 Challenged Again
Rizal Ramli Adds Touchstones
The petition No. 75/PUU-XVIII/2020 was filed by 47 petitioners, including M. Sirajuddin Syamsuddin, Sri Edi Swasono, and H. M. Amien Rais. They argue that the approval of Perppu No. 1 of 2020 into Law No. 2 of 2020 by the House were done in the same session as its stipulation when it was supposed to be in “the next sessions,” according to Article 249 of Regulation No. 1 of 2020 on the House’s Code of Conduct relating to session year and session period. The approval of the perppu violated Article 22 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. As the House had received the perppu in session III, it must be approved/rejected in session IV. In addition, Article 22D paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution stipulates that the Regional Representatives Council (DPD) should’ve participated in the discussion of Perppu No. 1 of 2020 as the norm concerns the central and regional budget. However, the House discussed the perppu without the DPD’s involvement.
Writer: Nano Tresna Arfana
Editor: Nur R.
PR: Raisa Ayuditha, Muhammad Halim, Fitri Yuliana
Photographer: Gani
Translator: Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Translation uploaded on 10/13/2020 12:00 WIB
Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian version, the Indonesian version will prevail.
Friday, October 09, 2020 | 06:32 WIB 247