Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
2026 Hak Cipta Milik Hukumonline.com
Produk Pilihan
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami Robert Sidauruk, Agus Sahbani
Several lawyers have mounted a challenge to the government’s fuel subsidy allocation policy by submitting a judicial review petition of Article 13 of Law No. 27 of 2014on 2015 State Budget to the Constitutional Court (MK). These lawyers are of the view that the current subsidy policy places an unbalanced burden on the whole state budget and more greatly benefits well-off members of society rather than its needy members in contravention of the original aim.
Article 13 of the 2015 State Budget Law covers the subsidy program for 2015 as the basis for the government to determine and allocate funds to subsidize fuel. The applicants are arguing that in reality the subsidized fuel is mostly enjoyed by the upper-middle classes of society under the operation of Article 13 and therefore contradicts Article 23 (1) of the 1945 Constitution.
“Article 23 (1) of the 1945 Constitution mandates the State Budget plan is executed in a transparent and accountable manner for the greater good of society,” said Donny Tri Istiqomah, one of the lawyers, during preliminary hearings at the Constitutional Court in Jakarta on Thursday.
The lawyers further claimed that the excessive portion of the budget allocated for subsidizing fuel has impaired other subsidy programs for basic commodities, such as cooking oil, soybeans, and other productive expenditure such as fertilizer and seed for farming.
To see a greater allocation of subsidies to these important sectors, the lawyers are asking the Constitutional Court to limit the fuel subsidy to a maximum of 10% of the state budget, equal to IDR 200 trillion, by declaring Article 13 of the 2015 State Budget Law as unconstitutional or at least conditionally constitutional.
“Or at least declare Article 13 of the 2015 State Budget Law as constitutional insofar it is interpreted as meaning not more than 10% of the state budget,” added Mr. Istiqomah.
Rationale and Constitutional Loss
Responding to the petition, Justice Wahududin Adams criticized the demand to limit the fuel subsidy allocation to 10% of the state budget. Justice Adams further questioning the rationale behind the 10% limitation, which was not well explained in the petition.
“The applicant should explain the supporting arguments as to why the limitation should be set at 10% of the state budget,” Justice Adams suggested.
Further criticism also come from Justice Patrialis Akbar who requested further elaboration on the substance of the constitutional losses suffered by the applicants as advocates arising from the implementation of Article 13 of the 2015 State Budget Law. This matter is important to ensure the applicant has legal standing to proceed with the judicial review petition.
“The applicants do not expressly state the constitutional loss in their petition,” added Justice Akbar.
(hot/kc)
Robert Sidauruk, Agus Sahbani
Several lawyers have mounted a challenge to the government’s fuel subsidy allocation policy by submitting a judicial review petition of Article 13 of Law No. 27 of 2014on 2015 State Budget to the Constitutional Court (MK). These lawyers are of the view that the current subsidy policy places an unbalanced burden on the whole state budget and more greatly benefits well-off members of society rather than its needy members in contravention of the original aim.
Article 13 of the 2015 State Budget Law covers the subsidy program for 2015 as the basis for the government to determine and allocate funds to subsidize fuel. The applicants are arguing that in reality the subsidized fuel is mostly enjoyed by the upper-middle classes of society under the operation of Article 13 and therefore contradicts Article 23 (1) of the 1945 Constitution.
“Article 23 (1) of the 1945 Constitution mandates the State Budget plan is executed in a transparent and accountable manner for the greater good of society,” said Donny Tri Istiqomah, one of the lawyers, during preliminary hearings at the Constitutional Court in Jakarta on Thursday.
The lawyers further claimed that the excessive portion of the budget allocated for subsidizing fuel has impaired other subsidy programs for basic commodities, such as cooking oil, soybeans, and other productive expenditure such as fertilizer and seed for farming.
To see a greater allocation of subsidies to these important sectors, the lawyers are asking the Constitutional Court to limit the fuel subsidy to a maximum of 10% of the state budget, equal to IDR 200 trillion, by declaring Article 13 of the 2015 State Budget Law as unconstitutional or at least conditionally constitutional.
“Or at least declare Article 13 of the 2015 State Budget Law as constitutional insofar it is interpreted as meaning not more than 10% of the state budget,” added Mr. Istiqomah.
Rationale and Constitutional Loss
Responding to the petition, Justice Wahududin Adams criticized the demand to limit the fuel subsidy allocation to 10% of the state budget. Justice Adams further questioning the rationale behind the 10% limitation, which was not well explained in the petition.
“The applicant should explain the supporting arguments as to why the limitation should be set at 10% of the state budget,” Justice Adams suggested.
Further criticism also come from Justice Patrialis Akbar who requested further elaboration on the substance of the constitutional losses suffered by the applicants as advocates arising from the implementation of Article 13 of the 2015 State Budget Law. This matter is important to ensure the applicant has legal standing to proceed with the judicial review petition.
“The applicants do not expressly state the constitutional loss in their petition,” added Justice Akbar.
(hot/kc)