---

Applicant’s Attorney, Muhammad Baehaqi Adam delivers petition points at judicial review session on Act of Employee Pension (Undang-Undang Pensiun Pegawai), on Thursday (15/10) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ifa

 

 

 

The Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi –MK) holds preliminary session on Act Number 11 Year 1969 of Employee Pension and Employee Widow’s/Widower’s Pension (Undang-Undang Pensiun Pegawai), on Thursday (15/10) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Retired state-owned pawnshop PT. Pegadaian officer Aklan files petition which registered in Case Number 121/PUU-XIII/2015.

The Applicant, who has served for 36 years, says he never gets his pension rights since 1991 until 2004. He claims that he has carried out all of his tasks as civil servant, including pay saving and civil servant insurance (Taspen) amounted to 10 percent of his salary.

On that basis, the Applicant assesses such condition contrary to Article 9 Act a quo which regulates on employees’ pension rights. Moreover, Finance Ministry has issued decree stating pension fund shall be paid by the Applicant as retired pawnshop officer.

“Such condition contrary to Article 9 Act a quo stating civil servants’ rights who have fulfilled their obligations. Mr. Aklan has done his obligations for 36 years, including having his wage cut by 10 % for Taspen, but he never get pension fund,” said Applicant’s Attorney Muhammad Baehaqi Adam.

However, the Applicant admits that Article 9 Act a quo already correct. He questions the implementation of the Article that hasn’t done by state-owned pawnshop PT. Pegadaian.

Thus, the Applicant requests the Constitutional Court to annul Pawnshop Directors Decree (Surat Keputusan Direksi Perum Pegadaian) Number KP 144/PBUP/V/1992 regarding honorable discharge as pawnshop officer with pension rights due to retirement age. Moreover, the Applicant requests the Court to command Pegadaian to pay his pension rights.

Responding the petition, Justice Panel led by Deputy Chief Anwar Usman asks the Applicant to explain his constitutional loss by the enactment of Act of Employee Pension. It is because the Applicant only explains on economical loss he suffered.

“Unpaid allowances and so forth are not regarded as constitutional loss. Those are material loss that could be later related, if material loss resulted by contradictive norms. Thus, it still could be judged as constitutional loss. That is what you need to explain,” said Aswanto.

Moreover, Justice Panel emphasizes that the Constitutional Court is a judicial institution that adjudicates norm contradiction on an Act towards the 1945 Constitution. Justice Panel advises the Applicant to file lawsuit to state administrative courts if he wants to request decree cancellation. (Lulu Hanifah/IR/Prasetyo Adi N)

---