---

Petitioner\'s attorney Singgih Tomi Gumilang after revision hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 24 of 2011 on the Social Security Agency, Wednesday (6/2/2019) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

The Constitutional Court (MK) held the petition revision hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 24 of 2011 on the Social Security Agency (BPJS Law), Wednesday (6/2/2019). The petition No. 7/PUU-XVII/2019 was filed by housewife Nur Ana Apfianti from Surabaya.

Singgih Tomi Gumilang as attorney conveyed the petition revision to the panel of justices led by Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo on the petition that was similar to one that had been petitioned. “After carefully [comparing] the petition to petition No. 101/PUU-XIV/2016 in past hearings, [we found] differences in legal standing and argument,” he explained.

Singgih explained that the Petitioner’s petition emphasized that the reason for constitutional loss was because the Petitioner as a citizen had already registered in a private healthcare insurance that she deemed to be more quality than BPJS insurance. Article 14 of the BPJS Law states that every person, including foreigners who have worked for a minimum of six months in Indonesia, must be a participant in the social security program. This is what caused double insurance.

Meanwhile, the Petitioners of case No. 101/PUU-XIV/2016 had a legal standing as Regent and Head of Gowa District Legislative Council (DPRD), South Sulawesi who suffered a loss as regional heads because they could not independently manage the healthcare of Gowa District people. Therefore, according to the Petitioner, her petition and that of case No. 101/PUU-XIV/2016 have different reason for constitutional loss.

The Petitioner further affirmed her petition. She could not understand the lawmakers\' reason for the requiring all citizens to join the Healthcare BPJS program. If the purpose is to help poor people so that their health services are covered, only the poor shall be obliged to participate, because the state provides assistance through contributions to the poor in BPJS as stated in Article 19 paragraph (4) of the BPJS Law. However, according to the Petitioner, the state should not need to force citizens who can afford credible insurance and would like less restriction when making claims to join Healthcare BPJS. 

According to the Petitioner, Article 14 of the BPJS Law contradicts Article 34 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution, which mandated that the state shall develop a social security system for all citizens and empower marginalized and poor community in accordance with a standard of human dignity. 

The Petitioner is registered as a Healthcare BPJS participant since 2018 by paying a premium of Rp51,000.00 (fifty one thousand rupiahs) with membership number 0001734248891. Prior to registering Healthcare BPJS, the Petitioner had been a Prudential insurance participant with Policy Number 10075516 since September 22, 2014. The a quo insurance plus savings covered for the Petitioner\'s healthcare.

The Petitioner feels that her constitutional rights have been impaired in terms of legal protection because she cannot make her own choice in joining the appropriate health insurance. With the enactment of the a quo provision, the Petitioner\'s constitutional right to obtain the best insurance is neglected. In addition, if the Petitioner does not register the Healthcare BPJS, she will be sanction with written warning, a fine, or restriction to certain public services.  

According to the Petitioner, BPJS, which was formed through Law Number 24 of 2011 and Law Number 40 of 2004, which regulate the national social security system, is divided into two—Healthcare BPJS and Employment BPJS 

The Petitioner reviews Article 14 of the BPJS Law that states that every person including foreigners who has worked for a minimum of six months in Indonesia must be a participant in the social security program. The Petitioner thinks that the word \'mandatory\' in the a quo article means everyone, both children and adults, the poor and the rich, are all obliged to take part in the Healthcare and Social Security Agency (BPJS) healthcare program.  

However, according to the Petitioner, the mechanism of Healthcare BPJS services is not the same as that of private insurance. Healthcare BPJS applies tiered referrals and medicine limitations. Meanwhile, private insurance, which the Petitioner uses, participants are allowed to choose treatment in any hospital that cooperates with the private insurance and the medicine is fully covered by the insurance company. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---