---

Applicant’s Attorney Sodikin, Dwi Putri, Sutejo Sapto Jalu and Pahlevi El Hakim listened to Constitutional Judges’ advice at first session of judicial review on UU BPJS, on Wednesday (29/4) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ganie

 

 

A number of social security observers sued Act Number 24 Year 2011 of the Healthcare and Social Security Agency (Undang-Undang Badan Penyelenggara Jaminan Sosial –UU BPJS). The articles reviewed related to the appointment of Supervision Board and the assets separation.

The Applicant was Yaslis Ilyas, Kasir Iskandar, Odang Muchtar and Dinna Wisnu among others. According to the Applicant, Article 21 (2) Act of the Healthcare and Social Security Agency and the elucidation were contrary to Article 28C (2) and Article 28D (3) the 1945 Constitution. The provision assessed giving opportunity to the BPJS’ Supervision Board who was not appropriate with people will due to two slots of the Board was granted to the government representative. The Applicant feared it would lead to non-independent supervision.

Based on the provision, the Applicant assessed the Supervision Board position was only for government officers, companies, workers, and public figures whose criteria was difficult to be determined. “The Supervision Board position is only for government officers, workers, companies, and public figures, so the criteria is difficult to be determined,” said Applicant’s Attorney Dwi Putri at first session of case number 47/PUU-XIII/2015 on Wednesday (29/4) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building.   

The Applicant also sued the provision of Supervision Board age limit which stipulated in Article 25 (1) letter f Act of the Healthcare and Social Security Agency. The Applicant argued the limitation had hampered the BPJS performance. “According to us, the Supervision Board position is not supposed to be based on age limit. But, it should be based on the measurable criteria of formal education and on competence,” Dwi explained.

Assets Separation

In the same case, the Applicant also reviewed the provision on Article 41 (2), Article 42, Article 43 (2) Act of the Healthcare and Social Security Agency which considered contrary to Article 28H (1) and (3) as well as Article 34 (2) and (3) the 1945 Constitution. The provision was related to the separation of the BPJS’ assets with the social security fund. “According to us, the assets separation is no longer needed because it had caused conflict of interest in terms of its use and practicality,” added her.

The Applicant argued the BPJS board could not use the BPJS’ assets when the Social Security Council’s (Dewan Jaminan Sosial) assets were insufficient to pay the healthcare claims so that the Applicant’s social security would be disrupted. Moreover, the assets separation could lead to the sense of possession. Whereas as a public entity, the government assets should not be separated due to it regarded as public assets.

Therefore, the Applicant in the petitum requested to the Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi –MK) to declare Article 21 (2) and its Elucidation, Article 25 (1) letter f, Article 41 (2), Article 42, Article 43 (2) Act of the Healthcare and Social Security Agency contrary to the 1945 Constitution and had no legal binding.

Responded to the petition, Justice Panel led by Constitutional Justice Patrialis Akbar advised the Applicant to revise the petitum arrangement. “You should first request this (the articles, red) is contrary to the 1945 Constitution, then next as the consequence of it, it has no legal binding. It usually separated,” said Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna.

Moreover, Justice Panel advised the Applicant to strengthen the petition arguments. One of them is the arguments which stated Supervision Board of the BPJS was non-independent due to two slots of the Board was granted to government officers. (Lulu Hanifah/Prasetyo Adi N.) 

---