Principle Applicant Harris Simanjuntak delivered petition points at preliminary judicial review session on Act of Pension Fund, on Tuesday (23/6) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ganie 

The Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi –MK) held preliminary judicial review session on Act Number 11 Year 1992 of Pension Fund (Undang-Undang Dana Pensiun –UU Dana Pensiun) on Tuesday afternoon (23/6) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. The petition which listed in number 74/PUU-XIII/2015 was filed by a retired employee of PT. Dirgantara Indonesia who also pension fund member of PT. Industri Pesawat Terbang Nusantara (IPTN) Harris Simanjuntak. The Applicant felt detrimental by the enactment of Article 9, Article 21 (1), Article 31 (1), Article 51 (1) and (2) Act of Pension Fund which regulated pension fund management to the parties entitled to pension fund benefits, because up to now the Applicant yet granted the fund.

The Applicant realized the articles a quo had been reviewed by him to the Constitutional Court under Case Number 6/PUU-XII/2014. Previous verdict stated ‘Applicant’s Petition cannot be accepted (niet ontvankelijk verklaard)’. According to the Court, Applicant reasons were obscure and didn’t meet the provision on Article 51 (3) Act of the Constitutional Court. The Court assessed Applicant’s petition was a concrete case, not a constitutional right violation.

In the petition, the Applicant considered the enactment of Article 9, Article 21 (1), Article 31 (1), and Article 51 (1) and (2) Act of Pension Fund were in fact had no legal binding. It cannot provide legal certainty to the Applicant and entire pensioners to gain feasible fund. In addition, it had caused PT. Dirgantara Indonesia’s Board as employer never carried out their responsibility to maintain adequate fund in IPTN Pension Fund for decades. 

“Article 31 (1), Article 51 (1) and (2) Act of Pension Fund are enacted without clear legal sanction, only by administrative sanction. It causes PT. Dirgantara Indonesia could arbitrarily violates the provision,” said the Applicant.

Responding Applicant arguments, Constitutional Justice Patrialis Akbar assessed Applicant’s petition was a matter of Act implementation failure, instead of a matter of norm constitutionality. “Keep in mind that one of the Constitutional Court authorities is to review Acts towards the 1945 Constitution. So the Court is not review Act implementation,” said Patrialis.

Meanwhile Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo advised the Applicant to reconstruct and shorten his petition. Constitutional Justice Manahan MP Sitompul assessed the Applicant arguments were incomplete on the norm he filed. In fact, norm addition wasn’t the authority of Constitutional Court. (Nano Tresna Arfana/Prasetyo Adi N)