Article 27 paragraph (1) of Law No. 40/2004 on National Social Security System (Navigation), as long as the phrase "a certain extent" that by the Petitioners that conditional declared unconstitutional, and must be interpreted limit of the amount of 2 (two) times the income is not taxable, according to the Government is not the issue of constitutionality of a norm that needs to be reviewed against the 1945 Constitution Act.

"If the applicant proposes" limit certain calculations "it may propose through the legislative review to the former Act (House of Representatives and the President)," said Head of Legal Department Ministry of Manpower and Transmigration Sunarno, on hearing of Social Security Act - Case No. 90/PUU-X/2012 - on Wednesday (31/10) at the Plenary Court.

Furthermore, said Sunarno, the Petitioners also contrasts between Act 3/1992 on Social Security Workers (JSTK) with this Act. In fact, he said such things cannot be contested because each different laws regulating provision. If JSTK regulate health insurance in the employment relationship between employers and workers / laborers, while the Social Security set up health insurance for all Indonesian people.

"According to the Government, the Petitioners confuse health insurance in employment and health insurance outside of employment. In fact, the two are different," said Sunarno, before the Constitutional Court, headed by Moh. Mahfud MD.

Based on the above considerations, according to the Government, the social security system has been set up in the Social Security Act are eligible and intent of Article 34 Paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. Therefore, the Government pleaded that the petition of the Petitioners rejected or at least declare the petition cannot be accepted.

Not Contrary

In the trial presented by M. Komarudin, Hamsani, Nani Sumarni, et al as the Petitioner, also heard testimony from the House of Representatives, who represented members Yahdil Harahap. According to him, the provisions of article basically explains tested and regulate the provision of Article 19 of Law a quo that have been previously tested material.

Then, Article 19 of the Act, he has arranged that one of the principles of social insurance is the amount of fees based on a percentage of wages / results. "Because of that, the provisions of Article 27 which is a further provision of Article 19 a quo," he said.

Therefore, Yahdil told the court that the petition states contrary to the 1945 Constitution. "Lawmakers argued, the provisions of Article 27 paragraph (1) Law no. 40/2004, related to the phrase 'a certain extent, and with the workers' is not contrary to Article 28D paragraph (1) and paragraph (2), Article 28H Paragraph (1) and Paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution," explained a member of the House of Representatives that.

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." Said the petitioners, in the previous trial, Article a quo, as long as the phrase "... with the workers ..." otherwise contrary to the 1945 Constitution. "We consider Article 27 paragraph (1) of Law No. 40 of 2004 is unconstitutional," said Attorney Applicant Andi M. Asrun. (Shohibul Umam / mh/Yazid.tr)