Petitioner of the Review of Act on National Social Security System Confirmed the Basis of the Application Different to Previous Case

The applicant's attorney, Andi M. Asrun in improvement hearing confirmed that the petition of the Petitioners Case No. 90/PUU-X/2012 different cases ever in and decided by the Constitutional Court. Petitioners' petition, said Asrun, questioning the constitutionality of the section being tested, while the cases the Court had entered and terminated with respect to the form of insurance in the social security system.

"The argument that was built in the previous petition, in contrast to the petition a quo," he said in a judicial review trial of Act 40/2004 on National Social Security System, in the Plenary Room of the Constitutional Court, on Thursday (11/10). The case was filed by M. Komarudin, Hamsani, Nani Sumarni, Mugiyanto, Muhibbullah, Reza Firmansyah, and Joko Yulianto, who then called the Petitioners.

The Petitioner argues that constitutionality of Article 27 paragraph 1 of Law Social Security "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."

Along the phrase "extent" and "shared by the workers' wages could potentially reduce the applicant to reduce the need for life. Therefore, according to Petitioner, the phrase was contrary to the 1945 Constitution, particularly Article 28D paragraph (1) and (2) and Article 28H Paragraph (1) and (3).

In the trial of this improvement, the Petitioners also sharpen petition citing the opinion of the Court in Case No. 50/PUU-IX/2011, claiming Social Security Act has established the principle of social insurance and the gotongroyong's, which obligate those who can afford to pay the premiums or insurance contributions are in addition to themselves as well as for people who cannot afford.

"So it's not fair if the petitioners were working in the industry resulting in the disruption of health, and get a minimum wage by an average of 1.5 million to 2 million / month equivalent worker or workers who earn more than Rp. 5 million / month," said Asrun.

In petition, Petitioner pleaded to the Court that Article 27 paragraph (1) Social Security Act, along phrase "extent" to be declared contrary to the 1945 Constitution and have no binding legal force, meant "minimum wage". Then, declare Article 27 paragraph (1) of the Social Security along the phrase "shared by the worker" must be declared contrary to the Constitution of 1945, and have no binding legal effect. (Shohibul Umam / mh/

Thursday, October 11, 2012 | 17:20 WIB 69