Petitioner Helmi Kamal Lubis with attorneys Ahmad Bay Lubis dan Dedy Setyawan in the ruling hearing of the judicial review of the Pension Funds Law on Tuesday (21/5) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court rejected the entire petition filed by Muhammad Helmi Kamal Lubis on Law No. 11 of 1992 on Pension Funds. The verdict was pronounced by Chief Justice Anwar Usman in the ruling hearing on Tuesday (21/5/2019) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court.

The Petitioner of Case No. 59/PUU-XVI/2018 argued that 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, had violated his constitutional rights, and resulted in specific and actual losses.

Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih, reading the legal considerations, said that it is necessary to refer to the General Elucidation to the Pension Funds Law, which details several principles in the implementation of pension plans through the Pension Funds. If the norm is narrowed, she added, it will eliminate the essence of the founders of other pension funds that are not legal entities. "This does not provide legal protection for people who will establish a pension fund or for the founding partners of the pension fund who will join other pension funds," Justice Enny said.

In relation to concrete events experienced by the Petitioner, who stated that his pension fund had been examined by an independent auditor with an unqualified (WTP) opinion. This does not prove the unconstitutionality of the a quo Law, but rather was part of the defense of the Petitioner. Therefore, it is not the authority of the Court to judge. "Based on the elaboration of the legal considerations, there is no conflict between the norm of Article 29 letter a and the 1945 Constitution, so that the Petitioner\'s a quo argument is legally groundless," Justice Enny explained before the Court led by Chief Anwar Usman, accompanied by seven other constitutional justices .

Authorized to Audit

Justice Enny said further that related to the Petitioner’s argument that the financial audit of state-owned Pension Funds is valid and legally binding, the Court is of the opinion that if an audit by a Public Accountant does not immediately eliminate the possibility of an audit by the BPK including investigative audit. That is because as long as there is management of state money, the BPK has the authority to conduct audits on any legal subject. Moreover, the norm questioned by the Petitioner is general, where audits apply to all Pension Funds. "Based on the above considerations, the argument of the a quo Petitioner legally groundless," she said.

With regard to the Petitioner’s claim that Article 52 paragraph (4) of the Pension Funds Law contradicts Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, especially if the word "can" not be changed to "shall," the Court considers that the article is part of the oversight by the Minister of Finance towards the Pension Funds. Therefore, according to the Court, the Petitioner’s argument is a his concern on the involvement of the BPK in direct financial audit of the Pension Funds founded by SOEs as well as the concrete case faced by the Petitioner. "Thus, the Petitioner’s argument that requires that the financial audit of Pension Funds managed by SOEs must be carried out by public accountants is groundless. Therefore, the Petitioner’s argument must be declared legally groundless," Justice Enny explained. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)