The Constitutional Court (MK) held a second hearing judicial review of Act 2 of 1992 on Insurance Business filed by four men with a life insurance policyholder Bumiputera 1912, namely Jaka Irwanta, Siti Rohmah, Freddy Gurning, and Yana Permadiana, Monday (22/4). This session was to hear the petition improvement.

Petitioner’s Attorney, Zairin Harahap said it had made several improvements in the petition filed by his client. Among other repairs were on touchstone used. When initially using Article 28 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution as a touchstone, now replaced by the Applicant of Article 1 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution, Article 27 paragraph (1) of the Constitution of 1945, and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the Constitution , 1945.

Then, Zairin said that it could not change the status of the joint venture. Zairin said, according to the philosophical aspects of the establishment of joint venture mutual AJB 1912 Bumi Putera unlike limited companies in general because mutual joint venture is established for the welfare of its members, policyholders. This is a translation or implementation of the provisions of Article 33 paragraph (1) of Law 1945. Zairin said Limited Liability Company is for the benefit of investors or shareholders alone. "In the policy holder is not the owner of PT but a sort of customer or consumer who only have a right to claim. So philosophically very different if he wanted to be a PT," said Zairin.

 Zairin said Article 7 paragraph (3) the requested otherwise unconstitutional extent not understood specify the duration of the determination of the law by the applicant because he saw the article does not specify the duration of the legislation. Zairin added arguments in the petition that the Law no. 12 In 2011, it also requires each a legislation should include an executive regulations.

 "Then we are also here to say that it can be said that for 21 years, it is already a legal vacuum associated with the insurance business in the form of joint venture, even though the government issued rules last legislation regulated by PMK No. 53/PMK/2012. I guess this is related to the insert of the Assembly at the first session saying that to fully understand the provisions of Article 7 (3) should also read the explanation. Until now the PP as well not exist. In fact, that is issued PMK (Regulation of the Minister of Finance) No. 53 of 2012. I guess this is the repeal-PMK PMK before, so last in this, Your Honor," said Zairin explaining the reason of the petition.

 Panel chairman Judge Maria Farida Indrati on the last occasion this meeting approved five evidence presented by the Petitioner. In addition, Maria said it would take the case to the trial outcome Consultative Meeting for further discussion. "I’m going to apply for you in the judges’ deliberation meeting ya. After this it is then I’ll explain how the position of this petition to the judges deliberation meeting and will be determined how the continuation of this application. Therefore, later Fathers awaiting the verdict of the Constitutional Court and will be notified after this. Later Mr. and Mrs. just waiting for a call from the Court whether this continued until the plenary decision or not," Maria said as she closed the session.

Applicant was previously registered numbers disputed material 32/PUU-XI/2013 Article 7 (3) Insurance Business Act, which reads, "The provisions of the insurance business in the form of Joint Venture (mutual) further stipulated by the Law." Provision raises harm to the applicant because the law does not yet published, causing discrimination against the applicant as a policyholder in the Legal Entity Joint Venture (mutual), because other entities already have specific legislation. Another obvious disadvantage is the difficulty of having the opportunity to bid for goods and services. To participate in the tender required a legal entity status. The petitioners demanded that Section of the Act unconstitutional, all is not interpreted: "further regulated by Act no later than 1 (one) year" since the Constitutional Court’s decision on the application of this case and other demands. (Yusti Nurul Agustin / mh)