---

Applicant Burhan Manurung delivered petition points in preliminary session of State Treasury Act, on Wednesday (24/2), in Panel Session Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ganie

 

 

 

Retired Trade Ministry’s civil servant Burhan Manurung sues Act No. 1 Year 2004 of State Treasury (UU Perbendaharaan Negara). He considers Article 40 (1) Act a quo detrimental to his constitutional rights because the Article hampered him and his family to get pension fund from PT. Taspen.

The Article stated, “Debt claim at the expense of State/region is expired after 5 years since the debt is due, unless stipulated otherwise by law.” (“Hak tagih mengenai utang atas beban negara/daerah kedaluwarsa setelah 5 (lima) tahun sejak utang tersebut jatuh tempo, kecuali ditetapkan lain oleh undang-undang.”).

The Applicant didn’t get entire pension fund because PT. Taspen determined pension fund payment based on Payment Termination Letter (SKPP) issued by Finance Ministry that he received in June 23, 2015, instead of based on Applicant’s pension age which began in January 25, 2008. “Claim can be undertaken to PT. Taspen. If PT. Taspen never pay pension fund for more than 5 years, PT. Taspen then only want to pay pension fund of 5 years consecutively,” said him in Wednesday’s (24/2) session, in Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building.

The Applicant claimed that he already filed written objection to PT. Taspen, but he only got oral explanation; his complaint was expired and passed 5 year after the due date as stipulated in Article 40 (1) Act of State Treasury. He said that according to the Act, civil servants who yet received pension fund for more than 5 years since the pension age, they only entitled to 5 years consecutive payment and further payment. He argued that such regulation cannot be applied to civil servant because civil servants’ pension fund wasn’t explicitly mentioned in the Act. The Applicant requested that the Act was only applied to regent, governor, and mayor, instead of to civil servant.

“Moreover, it would be better if Act No. 1 Year 2004 is addressed to regent, governor, and mayor, instead of to civil servants because the Act concerns on debts made by regency government and city government to business entities. I hope that civil servants are excluded from the provisions of Act No. 1 Year 2004, particularly for Article 40 (1),” said him in front of Justice Panel led by Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams.

Justice Input

Member Justices Suhartoyo and Patrialis Akbar responded the petition by giving inputs. Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo advised the Applicant to follow petition structure as regulated by Court’s Registrar.

“From petition layout, I recognize that you are assisted by your friend who understands Court proceedings despite never having proceedings in the Constitutional Court,” said Patrialis.

Justice Panel then delivered that petition revision should be filed not later than March 8, 2016. The next session will be scheduled on revision examination. (Lulu Anjarsari/lul/Prasetyo Adi N)

---