Applicant Burhan Manurung delivered revision points in judicial review session of State Treasury Act, on Tuesday (8/3) in Panel Session Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ganie

Retired civil servant Burhan Manurung revises petition concerning Act No 1 Year 2004 of State Treasury. He delivered the revision in judicial review session of Case No 15/PUU-XIV/2016 on Tuesday (8/3) in Panel Session Room, the Constitutional Court Building.

The Applicant said he only revised petition demands without changing petition substance. “Basically, the revision is only improvement on sentences. The substantive change is on petition demands. We demand that this Act remain applicable to the extent it is not applied to civil servant pension security and retirement security as stipulated in Article 21 (c) and Article 91 (3),” said Burhan who formerly served in Trade Ministry.

The Applicant argued his constitutional rights was harmed by Article 40 (1) Act of State Treasury. 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 considered the Article hampered him and his family to get his entire pension fund from PT. Taspen.

The Applicant supposed to be retired based on his age in March 1, 2008. However, he only received duty-free prior to retirement letter (surat bebas tugas menjelang pensiun) in January 25, 2008. He then received Payment Termination Letter (SKPP) issued by Finance Ministry seven years after it, in June 23, 2015. Whereas pension security was paid after the SKPP issued. PT. Taspen determined pension fund payment based on the SKPP issuance, not on Applicant’s pension age. Therefore, the Applicant didn’t get his entire pension fund.

“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 previous session.

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 year 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. (Lulu Anjarsari/lul/Prasetyo Adi N)