Court: Petition for Social Security System Law Unreasonable According to Law
Image


The Constitutional Court declared in a case testing the Application of Law No. 40 of 2004 on National Social Security System filed by employees of state-owned FX Arief Poyuono and Darsono unreasonable laws. It is stated by the Court in Decision No. 51/PUU-IX/2011, read on Tuesday (14/8) at Plenary Room. "Main application is not unreasonable under the law," said Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Moh. Mahfud MD.

Court stated, the petition of the Petitioner regarding Article 17 paragraph (1), paragraph (2), and paragraph (3) of the National Social Security cannot be accepted. While the examination of Article 17 paragraph (4), subsection (5), and paragraph (6), Article 19, Article 20, Article 21, Article 27, Article 28, Article 29, Article 30, Article 34, Article 35, Article 36 , Article 38, Article 39, Article 40, Article 42, Article 43, Article 44 and Article 46 of Law SJSN otherwise rejected.

"Whereas since disputed by the applicant regarding the constitutionality of Article 17 paragraph (4), subsection (5) and paragraph (6), Article 19, Article 20, Article 21, Article 27, Article 28, Article 29, Article 30, Article 34, Article 35, Article 36, Article 38, Article 39, Article 40, Article 42, Article 43, Article 44, Article 46 of Law 40/2004 on the basis of reasoning similar to the test of Article 17 paragraph (1), (2) , and (3) the previous decision, namely the problem of social insurance principle and the obligation to pay dues for the participants, then the Court's judgment in Decision No. 007/PUU-III/2005, dated August 31, 2005, and Decision No. 50/PUU-VIII/2010 , is dated 21 November 2011 shall also apply mutatis mutandis to this decision, "said Court.

Previously, the Petitioners questioned every assurance program set forth in these provisions, which determines that the health insurance, accident insurance, pension, pension and life insurance held on the principle of social insurance, as well as the obligation to pay dues for each participant assurance program. The Petitioner argues that the principle of social insurance and liability fee is contradictory to Article 28H paragraph (3) and Article 34 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. (Dodi / mh/Yazid.tr)


Tuesday, August 14, 2012 | 17:35 WIB 107