Ahmad Bay Lubis as legal counsel of the Petitioner delivering the principal points of the petition revision of the judicial review of the Pension Funds Law, Monday (6/8) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The Constitutional Court held the second hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 11/1992 on Pension Funds on Monday (6/8) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Before the hearing chaired by Constitutional Justice Manahan M.P. Sitompul, accompanied by Constitutional Justices Aswanto and Arief Hidayat, Ahmad Aldi Bay as the legal counsel of the Petitioner conveyed the revision to the petitum of the judicial review of the Elucidation to Article 29 of the Pension Fund Law. 

Aldi clarified that the Elucidation to Article 29 of the Pension Fund Law have a legal basis and basic principles, including the separation of the pension funds assets from the assets of the legal entity of the founder(s) as well as the implementation of the funding system. "So it must be done by raising funds managed separately from the assets of the founder(s)," he explained. 

Therefore, in the petitum, the Petitioner requested that the Court declare Article 29 letter a of the Pension Funds Law conditionally constitutional insofar as it is interpreted as the contribution of a non-BUMN (state-owned enterprise) employer does not constitute state finance. 

As for Article 52 paragraph (1) letter a of the Pension Funds Law, he requested that the Court declare it conditionally constitutional insofar as the audit is interpreted as being done on the financial statements of pension funds established by state-owned enterprises to be legal and legally enforceable if carried out by a public accountant. Whereas, Article 52 paragraph (4) of the Pension Funds Law has binding legal force as long as the meaning of the word "can" is changed into "shall" (mandatory). 

Muhammad Helmi Kamal Lubis, an individual citizen, claimed to have experienced specific and actual damages due to the enactment of Article 14 juncto Article 52 paragraph (1) letter a and paragraph (4) of the Pension Funds Law, which regulates the institution authorized to audit pension funds financial statements. According to the Petitioner of case No. 59/PUU-XVI/2018, the a quo articles had caused uncertainty related to the institution(s) authorized to audit the financial statements of pension funds, whether it is the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK) or public accountants.

The Petitioner claimed that the Pension Funds company is an "object of examination" of public accountants as regulated in the Pension Funds Law. Thus, a contrario it can be interpreted that the Pension Funds is "not" the object of the BPK audit. In other words, BPK is not authorized to constitutionally audit Pension Funds financial statements.

Before concluding the session, Justice Manahan approved several pieces of evidence submitted by the Petitioner. He also requested, regarding the schedule for the next hearing, that the Petitioner wait for the results of the Justices’ Deliberation Meeting that would be informed by the Registrar\'s Office of the Constitutional Court. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)