Judicial review of Law 40/2004 on National Social Security System was not accepted by the Constitutional Court (MK). "To declare the petition of the petition cannot be accepted," said the chairman of the plenary constitutional judges Moh. Mahfud MD was accompanied by eight members of the plenary Achmad Sodiki, Hamdan Zoelva, Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi, Anwar Usman, Harjono, Muhammad Alim, Maria Farida Indrati, and M. Akil Mochtar, when reading the verdict No. 9/PUU-X/2012, Tuesday (09/25/2012) in a plenary building. 

Applications for judicial review were filed by the Social Security Act Fathul Hadie Uthman, Prof. DR. Abdul Halim Soebahar, MA, DR. Abd. Kholiq Intercession, MA, Ahmad Nur Qomari, SE, MM, Ph.D., DR. M. Hadi Purnomo, M Ed, Dra. Hamdanah, M. Hum, Dra. Sumilatun, MM, Sanusi Affansi, SH, MH, Imam Mawardi, Jaelani, and Imam Rofii.

Social Security Law of the tested material, namely Article 14 on the phrase "gradually and its explanation" and Article 17 paragraph (5), Article 1, point 3 on the phrase "fundraising and phrases participants", item 12 on the phrase "domestic" the word public servant and point 14 on the phrase "work" and the phrase "in the employment relationship, including accidents that occur on the way from home to work or vice versa", Article 13 paragraph (1) the phrase "gradually" and the phrase "in accordance with the social security program that followed "Article 17 paragraph (1) the phrase" participants must pay fees ", paragraph (2) the phrase" shall collect dues and fees to add the phrase "paragraph (3) the phrase" dues ", Article 20 paragraph (1) the phrase "who have paid dues or whose government paid" and subsection (3), Article 21 paragraph (1) the phrase "at least for six months", paragraph (2) the phrase "after six months" and phrases whose contributions ", Article 27 paragraph (1) the phrase "dues", paragraph (2) the phrase "dues", subsection (3) the phrase "dues" and subsection (5) the phrase "dues", Article 28 paragraph (1) the phrase "and want to involve other family members must pay extra fees ", Article 29 paragraph (1) the phrase" work ", paragraph (2) the phrase" labor unions and phrases and phrases or suffer from occupational diseases ", Article 30 of the phrases" work is the one who has been paying dues ", Article 31 paragraph (1) the phrase" work ", paragraph (2) the phrase" work and the phrase "workers", Article 32 paragraph (1) the phrase "work", paragraph ( 3) the phrase "work", Article 34 paragraph (1) the phrase "dues and the phrase" work ", paragraph (2) the phrase" dues and the phrase "work", and paragraph (3) the phrase "dues", Article 35 paragraph (1) the phrase "or a forced savings", paragraph (2) the phrase "retirement or death", Article 36 of the phrase "those who have paid dues", article 37 paragraph (1) the phrase "once retired , died ", paragraph (2) the phrase" all that had been deposited accumulated contributions plus investment results ", subsection (3), Article 38 paragraph (1), paragraph (2) the phrase" dues "Explanation of Law 40/2004 on phrase "informal sector can be a participant voluntarily".

Authority Lawmakers

The Court is Petitioner did not spell out clearly the reasons disagreement phrases in section / subsection to the 1945 Social Security Act. The petitioners merely outline the reasons that phrase article / paragraph in the Social Security Act is being tested in order to be interpreted as you wish to the Petitioners. The ambiguity lies in the petition include the formulation of chapter / verse substitute proposed by the Applicant. In this case testing the constitutionality of the Petitioners filed the phrase in section / subsection Social Security Act, but the reason for the request and the request that the Court make petitum replacement formula as defined by the Petitioners.

Court considered that the phrase is being tested and the arguments relating to pleadings and illogical between posita and petition. If the applicant examined the constitutionality of the particular term, then it should only apply to cancel petitioned phrases. While phrases or other legal norms contained in the article / paragraph is not petitioned for by the applicant, must be declared unconstitutional and void.

Court in the testing of the Constitution Act, 1945, does not have the authority to formulate norms chapter / verse in a law. Court considered the petition submitted does not meet the provisions of Article 31 and Article 51A paragraph (2) of the Constitutional Court, which does not describe clearly and in detail the basis for and the things that petitioned for the cut, so that the petition of the petitioner is obscure (obscuur) and must be declared unacceptable.

However, if the applicant feels aggrieved by the enactment of constitutional rights because the Social Security Act to obtain health insurance, pension, employment injury, old age, and death benefits, as well as other social security one must register / be registered, must pay or paid the fee, the Court found that the provisions relating to the matter has been assessed and decided by the Court, among others in Decision No. 50/PUU-VIII/2010, dated 21 November 2011 and 51/PUU-IX/2011, dated August 14, 2012. (Nur Rosihin Ana / mh/Yazid.tr)