Four of the Joint Life Insurance (AJB) Bumiputera 1912 policy holders, namely Jaka Irwanta, Siti Rohmah, Freddy Gurning, and Yana Permadiana litigated reviewing Act 2 of 1992 on Insurance Business to the 1945 Constitution. Two of the four Petitioners, namely Jaka Irwanta and Yana Permadiana attended the trial of cases registered with the number 32/PUU-XI/2013, Wednesday (3/4). Assembly time was chaired by M. Akil Mochtar.

The petitioners filed a judicial review of Article 7, paragraph (3) Insurance Business Act, which reads, "The provisions on insurance business in the form of Joint Venture (mutual) further stipulated by the Act." Petitioner Attorney, Zairin Harahap conveyed the applicant has suffered loss unconstitutional because the law referred to in Article 7 paragraph (3) of the Act have not been issued. "For 21 years, the law makers do not publish legislation on joint venture entity that has caused legal uncertainty for the applicant," said Zairin before Akil that accompanied by Anwar Usman and Arief Hidayat as members of the panel of judges.

In addition, the article also said Zairin has caused discrimination against the applicant as the policyholder in the Legal Entity Joint Venture (mutual). Because other entities already have specific laws that regulate business activities related to the legal question. "Not to the issuance of Law Legal Entity Joint Venture is causing discriminatory treatment to the insurance business. Meanwhile, other business entities, such as limited liability companies, cooperative enterprises have issued laws. Meanwhile, for the insurance business as promised Article 7 paragraph (3) of Insurance Business until now not yet exist," said Zairin.

The real loss suffered by the applicant, continued Zairin, namely the difficulty to have the opportunity to participate in tenders for goods and services. Therefore, to follow the procurement of goods and services required status of a legal entity. The petitioners through their attorneys also stated that Article 7 paragraph (3) Insurance Business Act contravenes Article 28D (1) and Article 28 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution.

At the end of his statement, Zairin delivered petition as follows: one, the applicant for the grant entirely. Two, Article 7 paragraph (3) of Law No. 2 of 1992 on Insurance Business, which reads: "The provisions on insurance business in the form of Joint Venture (mutual) further stipulated by law" contrary to the 1945 Constitution, all is not understood: "shall be further regulated by Act no later than 1 (one) year" since the Constitutional Court Decision on Application for Testing Material Article 7 paragraph (3) of Act 2 of 1992 issued. Three, Article 7 paragraph (3) of Act 2 of 1992 on Insurance Business, which reads: "The provisions on insurance business in the form of Joint Venture (mutual) further stipulated by the Law" has no binding legal force, as long as not understood "regulated further by Act no later than 1 (one) year", since the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Material Testing Application of Article 7, paragraph (3) of Law No. 2 of 1992 issued. Fourth, change the content / editorial article 7 paragraph (3) of Law No. 2 of 1992 on Insurance Business issued a "provision of insurance business in the form of Joint Venture (mutual) further stipulated by the Act no later than 1 (one) year "since the Constitutional Court Decision on Application for Testing Material Article 7 paragraph (3) of Act 2 of 1992 issued.

To the petition, the judge panel suggestions for improvement request. Akil suggested Petitioners removing the fourth petition for changing the content / editorial article is not the authority of the Court. Akil also advised Petitioner that weigh her appeal by saying if the petition is granted related to the provision of Insurance Business, did Petitioner still suffered constitutional losses. "Legal standing there must be constitutional, constitutional, there must be a causal relationship, and it must also be constitutional specific specialty. And with granted this petition, constitutional loss was nothing, it is normative. But it must be coupled," Akil suggestion.

Meanwhile, Ariel suggested that the applicant modify any Joint legal status to Private Legal Venture. "It could have also fellow policyholders an Extraordinary General Meeting of Shareholders (AGM) to change its legal entity status to private legal entities. If everyone agrees, it could also happen, right? Instead of waiting for legislation or government regulation that does not exist," said Arief. (Yusti Nurul Agustin / mh)