Dwi Maryoso as Principal Petitioner attending the ruling hearing of judicial review of the State Civil Apparatus Law (ASN Law) on Wednesday (31/1) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The Constitutional Court (MK) is of the opinion that the Petitioners\' petition with regard to the unconstitutionality of the phrase "regulated in a Government Regulation" in Article 92 paragraph (4) and Article 107 of Law No. 5/2014 on State Civil Apparatus (ASN Law) is unreasonable according to law. The case petitioned by Dwi Maryoso and Feryando Agung Santoso, both civil servants, was held in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court on Wednesday (31/1).

"The verdict hears, rejects the entirety of Petitioners\' petition," said Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat reading the verdict of case No. 98/PUU-XV/2017.

In their petition, the Petitioners claimed that the a quo articles harmed their constitutional rights, because they act as the basis for the issuance of the Government Regulation No. 70/2015 on Work Accident Insurance and Death Insurance for State Civil Apparatus Employees. According to the Petitioners, based on Government Regulation No. 70/2015 as a civil servant they are required to register in work accident and death insurance, which is part of social security, by giving authority to PT Taspen (Persero) to manage work accident and death insurance.

In relation to the petition, the legal considerations conveyed by Constitutional Justice Maria Farida Indrati stated that the Petitioners questioned Government Regulation No. 70/2015 on Work Accident Insurance and Death Insurance for State Civil Apparatus Employees, which was formed in the framework of implementing the authority delegated in the a quo article. The Court considered that the issue was not related to the norms of the ASN Law that delegates the arrangements related to ASN protection. Instead, the substance of norms contained in the government regulation is in accordance with the ASN Law. "Therefore, in relation to the norms of the law, the Court has no authority to judge and decide," said Justice Maria.

In relation to the Petitioners’ argument that PT Taspen as the organizer of the social security system for ASN confronted with Employment BPJS is considered contradictory to the 1945 Constitution, Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra stated that the Court considered PT Taspen to be mandated by law for a certain period of time. PT Taspen manages social security based on Article 2 of Government Regulation No. 44/2015 on the Implementation of on Work Accident Insurance and Death Insurance. "Thus, it is clear that PT Taspen is an institution that is indeed appointed by legislation to manage social security for ASN and PPPK employees up to 2029," Justice Saldi said. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)