The Petitioner\'s attorney Bayu Prasetio delivering the subjects of the petition of the judicial review of the BPJS Law, Monday (27/1) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The preliminary judicial review hearing of Law No. 24 of 2011 on the Social Security Administrative Agency (BPJS Law) was held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Monday (27/1/2020).

The Petitioners are retired high-ranking Indonesian military (TNI) officials Endang Hairudin, M. Dwi Purnomo, Adis Banjere, and Adieli Hulu. They challenged Article 65 paragraph (1) of the BPJS Law that reads, "PT TASPEN (Persero) shall transfer its old-age and pension programs to BPJS Employment at the latest by 2029."

Through attorney Bayu Prasetio, the Petitioners argued that the article potentially harm the Petitioners\' constitutional rights. Bayu explained that the Petitioners used to receive duties that carry the risk of death, disability, missing in action, and high mobility.

"After retirement, the Petitioners expect not to lose the pension benefits that they have been receiving from PT Asabri, especially position confidentiality and personal data that they believe must be kept according to their oath," Bayu said to the plenary justices led by Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo.

Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra observed the legal standing of Petitioners of case No. 6/PUU-XVIII/2020. "In relation to the Petitioners\' legal standing, it is not necessary to elaborate on their constitutional loss in the title. Although the substance contains the legal standing, the constitutional loss of the Petitioners, factual and/or potential, must be explained," he said.

Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh recommended, "In relation to legal standing, I would only like to add on what His Honor Prof. Saldi said earlier. Indonesia [has military relations] with other countries. The petition elaborates on TNI [the military] and the police. Does this mean that after retirement [personnel] is not related to the institution or is still emotionally or organizationally bound [to it]? This is only to clarify the legal standing."

Plenary chairman Justice Suhartoyo commented on the petitum, "Please merge petitum number 3-4. It will be simplified and easily understood by observers of this case." He also commented on the substance, "Although this substance is private, that the justices may not interfere, but at least it can be considered, as you requested a review of Article 65 paragraph (1) but actually which substance transfers the authority?" (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti