The Petitioners’ attorney Zul Armain Aziz delivering the subjects of the petition in the judicial review hearing of the Insurance Law, Monday (18/5) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Gani.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) held the preliminary judicial review hearing of Law No. 40 of 2014 on Insurance on Monday afternoon (18/5/2020) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. The case No. 32/PUU-XVIII/2020 was petitioned by the members representative body (BPA) of mutual life insurer Asuransi Jiwa Bersama (AJB) Bumiputera1912 Nurhasanah, Ibnu Hajar, Maryono, Achmad Jazidie, Habel Melkias Suwae, Gede Sri Darma, Septina Primawati, and Khoerul Huda. The Petitioners challenge Article 6 paragraph (3) of Law Number 40 of 2014 on Insurance that reads, "Further provisions regarding the joint venture legal entity as referred to in paragraph (2) shall be regulated in a Government Regulation."

The Petitioners’ attorney Zul Armain Aziz said in the panel hearing presided over by Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo that the Petitioners suffered constitutional loss due to the article. They believe that the provision is against the substance of the Constitutional Court Decision No. 32/PUU-XI/2013 dated April 3, 2014, in which the Court ordered that the provision on mutual insurance business shall be regulated in a separate law at the latest two years and six months after the ruling was pronounced. The president then issued the Government Regulation No. 87 of 2019 on Insurance Joint Ventures. However, the Petitioners believe that the Government and the House of Representatives had amended Law No. 2 of 1992 on Insurance Business into Law No. 40 of 2014 on Insurance, especially Article 6 paragraph (3).

‘However, mutual insurance, meaning Bumiputera insurance, is similarly regulated in one of the articles of Law No. 2 of 1992,” Zul said. The Petitioners believe that the Government Regulation (PP) contradicts the existing article of association of AJB that gave the Petitioners guarantee for their existence and authority.

Therefore, in their petitum, the Petitioners requested that the Court declare the phrase “regulated in a Government Regulation” in the article unconstitutional and not legally binding insofar as not be interpreted as “regulated in a Law.”

In response, Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo advised that the Petitioners make the petition more concise. “Your petition is actually simple,” he said. He also requested that they elaborate their constitutional loss.

Before concluding the session, Justice Suhartoyo reminded the Petitioner to submit a revised petition no later than Tuesday, June 2, 2020 at 13:00 WIB to the Registrar’s Office of the Constitutional Court. (Utami/AL/NRA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti

Translation uploaded on 05/18/2020