Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo reading out the legal considerations in the ruling hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 24 of 2011 on the Social Security Agency, Tuesday (26/3) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The judicial review petition of Law No. 24 of 2011 on the Social Security Agency (BPJS) filed by housewife Nur Ana Apfianti from Surabaya was rejected by the Constitutional Court (MK). “The verdict heard, rejects the Petitioner’’s petition for its entirety,” said plenary chairman Anwar Usman on the petition of case No. 7/PUU-XVII/2019 in the ruling hearing on Tuesday afternoon (26/3/2019).

In relation to the Petitioner’’s wish to remain registered to insurance by PT Prudential, the Court sees that as an option for the Petitioner that does not annul the obligation to register in Healthcare BPJS. The Petitioner in fact is able to pay Rp600.000 monthly Prudential insurance premium as well as help others by being registered in Healthcare BPJS. In principle, Healthcare BPJS is a mutual cooperation where basically the well-offs help the poor and the healthy help the sick.

“In essence, it follows the principle of tolerance and mutual cooperation, which is the philosophy of life of the Indonesian nation that has been passed on through generations by the ancestors, which up to now has been implemented in the nation’’s life and has been a character of Indonesian society,” Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo said reading out the Court’’s opinion.

In addition, the Court is of the opinion that this also affirms the Petitioner\'\'s question with regard to dual participation in healthcare programs is a problem that has nothing to do with the unconstitutionality of a norm. Therefore, the Court is of the opinion that the Petitioner\'\'s argument are unfounded and must therefore be declared groundless according to law.

In relation to foreigners having to participate in Healthcare BPJS as stipulated by Article 14 of the BPJS Law, the Court observed that the provision signifies state protection of the business world, especially its workers both national and foreign, in healthcare, so that no employer will be burdened with high healthcare costs. This will in turn reduce costs borne by employers. It will influence the prices of goods or services that the business produces, which will influence the public’’s purchasing power. In addition to the above legal considerations, the provision of the norm also represents the wishes of employers in Indonesia to hire foreign workers.

That way, according to the Court, the purpose of healthcare protection for employees in Indonesia, both national and foreign, can be realized. In addition, all employees in Indonesia can participate in embodying the Indonesian culture that always upholds the philosophy of tolerance and promotes mutual cooperation.

Based on those legal considerations, the Petitioner\'\'s argument that Article 34 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution, which stipulates that the state develop a social security system for all citizens and empowers those who are weak and poor in accordance with human dignity, must be interpreted as Indonesian citizens excluding foreigners in Indonesia is a groundless argument. Therefore, Article 14 of the Healthcare BPJS Law, according to the Court, is not contrary to the 1945 Constitution. Thus, the argument of the a quo Petitioner\'s has no legal grounds. “Based on those legal considerations, the Court is of the opinion that the Petitioner\'\'s argument has no legal grounds,” Justice Suhartoyo affirmed. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)