---

The Petitioners’ attorney Andi Muhammad Asrun reading out the subject of the petition in the preliminary material review hearing of Workers Social Security Agency (BPJS) Law, Wednesday (20/11) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Gani.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The plan to transfer  the "Payment of Pension and Old Age Benefits Program," which was originally a Civil Servants Insurance Savings (TASPEN) to the Workers Social Security Agency (Employment BPJS) has raised concerns from retired and active civil servants. A number of retired and active civil servants filed a petition to the Constitutional Court (MK) for the material review of Article 1 number 1, Article 5 paragraph (2), Article 57 letter f, Article 65 paragraph (2), and Article 66 of Law Number 24 of 2011 on the Social Security Administrative Agency (BPJS Law). The preliminary hearing of case No. 72/PUU-XVII/2019, led by Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams, took place on Wednesday (20/11/2019) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court.

Through attorney Andi Muhammad Asrun, the Petitioners said that they felt aggrieved by the enactment of the three articles the BPJS Law, which would create uncertainty for the Petitioners regarding the exercise of their constitutional right to obtain social security as stipulated in Article 28H paragraph (3) and Article 34 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. In addition, he added, the Petitioners also feel that their constitutional rights have been impaired due to decreasing benefits and services due to the transfer of the TASPEN program, which so far has benefited the Petitioners, to BPJS. "This law potentially causes constitutional losses in the future when the TASPEN program is transferred to BPJS," Asrun said.

Asrun explained that the government’s policy or legal politics separates the management of social security for civil servants and for others. This is stated in PP 45/2015 in conjunction with PP 46/2015, which confirms that the Implementation of the Old Age Benefits and Pension Benefits for Participants among employers of state administrators is excluded from the PP and is mandated to be regulated in a separate government regulation. 

According to the Petitioners, lawmakers intended that the implementation of the pension and old age benefits program for civil servants and state officials (employees who work for state administrators) be carried out separately from the management of that for employees who works private employers. The Petitioners feel there will be potential loss of rights in that the benefits obtained through participation in the pension and old age benefits program will disappear along with the enactment of the provisions of the articles. 

Therefore, the Petitioners requested that Article 1 number 1, Article 5 paragraph (2), Article 57 letter f, Article 65 paragraph (2), and Article 66 of the BPJS Law be declared unconstitutional and not legally binding. 

Justices’ Advice 

Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo advised that the Petitioners strengthen their legal standing. "Is the legal standing the same between the principal petitioners who have retired and those who are still active?" he asked. 

Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra advised them to sharpen the reasons for filing the petition. "Do not explain more about loss of constitutional rights [in the posita]," he said. 

The Petitioners were given 14 working days to revise their petition. They are to submit the revision by Tuesday, December 3, 2019 at 10:00 WIB. (Utami/LA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti

---