---

The witness summoned by Applicant,  Rahidtyo Risanggotro answered Government questions at judicial review session on Act of the Healthcare and Social Security Agency (Undang-Undang Badan Penyelenggara Jaminan Sosial –UU BPJS), on Monday (6/7) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ganie

 

 

Judicial review session on Act Number 24 Year 2011 of the Healthcare and Social Security Agency (Undang-Undang Badan Penyelenggara Jaminan Sosial –UU BPJS) –Case Number No. 47/PUU-XIII/2015 was held by the Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi –MK) on Monday afternoon (6/7). The session which scheduled on hearing Applicant’s Witness testimony was led by Deputy Chief Anwar Usman.

Rahadityo Risanggotro as Applicant’s Witness told his experience on organizing BPJS membership and its utilization. Rahadityo revealed that he was a son of Donet Heruseno who passed away at St. Elisabeth Hospital, Narogong, Bekasi. On February 23, 2015, he tried to get health access for his father. Eventually his father treated at St. Elisabeth Hospital for his lungs disease.

“His condition is slightly better after treated. Unfortunately, he didn’t covered by health insurance. So we cannot give comprehensive health remedy to my father,” said Rahadityo. 

At that time, they agreed to make health insurance for him. “As far as we know, entire health remedy cost is charged to the BPJS. We only know the BPJS as public service agency on health sector,” Rahadityo added. He went to the BPJS Building in West Bekasi to register his father. He experienced long queue on it. “I was thinking that  I cannot wait in the long queue because of my father critical condition. I asked for advice to my colleagues. The solution was registering my father through online and it was done on February 24, 2015,” he said.

He granted referral letter to obtain the BPJS service in Muhammadiyah Clinic, Cileungsi by level 1 health service (fasilitas kesehatan tingkat I). He then shocked because the clinic informed that the compensation provided by referral letter could be used seven days after the treatment. 

“Although we begged and told my father condition, we still didn’t grant compensation of referral letter. I then went to the St. Elisabeth Hospital for my father treatment. The treatment cost was increased, however we still can afford it using my own money,” said Rahadityo. After struggled for few days, his father was eventually passed away on February 26, 2015. “No health insurance provided by the BPJS,” said him recalled the struggle his father went through.

Applicant’s Attorney Dwi Puteri Cahyawati explained that Applicant’s Witness testimony was indeed didn’t related to the petition. “However, it is the real fact which supported Applicant’s Expert testimony. It is the fact related to the reason which revealed structure weakening of BPJS Supervisory Board,” Dwi added.

Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna examined Applicant intention who summoned witness which didn’t relate directly to the petition. “You said that it (the testimony, red) didn’t relate directly to the petition, but if it is linked to supervisory matter, which point do you want to assure to the Court by Witness testimony? Which point do you want to deliver if you relate (the testimony, red) with the supervisory matter?” Palguna asked.

Answering the question, Dwi said the reason of summoning the Witness was for strengthen Expert testimony which previously summoned. According to Dwi, the BPJS had regulated on the membership activation, in which she assessed the regulation caused damages. She assessed that the regulation led to the weakening of BPJS Supervisory Board structure.

“The BPJS had issued regulation on activation which damaged, damaged to Indonesian citizens. We assess it is the result of structure weakness and supervisory board weakness which led to the BPJS issued regulation which can caused people’s death. It had explained by our expert on several weeks ago,” Dwi explained.

Previously Applicant Yaslis Ilyas, et al. argued Article 21 (2) Act of the Healthcare and Social Security Agency and its elucidation had open opportunity to BPJS Supervisory Board candidates who didn’t appropriate with people’s will. The inclusion of two government elements on supervisory board slot was assessed caused non-independent supervision. The BPJS was public legal entity, similar to government institutions. Therefore, the Applicant assessed the particular inclusion of government element which granted two slots on Supervisory Board, was inappropriate. The inclusion of two government element also restricted professional and competent citizens who didn’t affiliated with the government.  

Similar cases occurred on the regulation of two workers slots and two employer slots. The regulation restricted citizen who willing to be BPJS Supervisory Board, but had no affiliation with workers organization or employer organization. The regulation of public figure slot also assessed very prone to be used arbitrarily in selecting BPJS Supervisory Board, because It could be used to select colleagues or relatives  who regarded as public figures, but had no competence and concern on social security sector. (Nano Tresna Arfana/Prasetyo Adi N)

---