A stipulation that health insurance costs borne by workers with employers as stipulated in Law no. 40/2004 on National Social Security System, considered being contrary to the Constitution. Therefore, the formulation is at least the potential to violate the guarantee of protection of legal certainty for employees as mandated by the Constitution of 1945, in particular Article 28D paragraph (1) and (2) and Article 28H Paragraph (1) and (3).

"We consider Article 27 paragraph (1) of Law No. 40 of 2004 is unconstitutional," said Petitioner Attorney Andi M Asrun in Case No. 90/PUU-X/2012. "This is a denial of the protection and guarantee of legal certainty (for) labor."

In fact, says Asrun, before provision does not exist. In fact, the burden of payment of health insurance premium contributions is just the responsibility of the employer alone. "(Now) turned into a shared responsibility between workers and employers," he said.

He thought, loading will also potentially aggravate the economic situation of the workers, especially workers who have incomes below two million per month. Therefore, it would be consequential on their reduced income.

Therefore, in one petition petition, the Principal Petitioner consisting of M. Komarudin, Hamsani, Nani Sumarni, et al, ordered that the whole phrase "... with the workers ..." otherwise contrary to the 1945 Constitution.

As for Article 27 paragraph (1) Social Security Law reads, "The amount of health insurance for those receiving wage is determined based on a percentage of wages up to a certain limit, which is gradually borne jointly by employers and employees."

After listening to the points the petition, the Constitutional Panel, chaired by Judge Constitutional Harjono, gives some suggestions for improvement. In essence, the Panel found Petitioner further losses need to be more elaborate constitutional. "The point is to sharpen. You should formulate a clear," said Harjono. (Dodi / mh/Yazid.tr)