---

House Commission III member Arteria Dahlan delivering the House’s statement in the judicial review hearing of the BPJS Law, Wednesday (8/7) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The House (DPR) argued that the shift in the insurance program to pay pension from PT Asabri to the Employment BPJS would not interfere with pension rights for retirees, said House Commission III member Arteria Dahlan in the judicial review hearing of Law No. 24 of 2011 on the Social Security Administrative Agency (BPJS Law). The hearing of case No. 6/PUU-XVIII/2020 was held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Wednesday (8/7/2020) in accordance with COVID-19 health protocols. The House and the Government gave their statements in the hearing.

In his statement on behalf of the House, Arteria responded to the Petitioners’ argument regarding the potential loss of benefits from the social insurance program for the Armed Forces of the Republic of Indonesia. The House is of the opinion that the provision regulating the transfer of social insurance program and pension program from PT Asabri to the Employment BPJS is a policy by the legislature to develop the national social insurance system. “It is not to reduce the Petitioners’ right to receive social insurance benefits,” he said.

The House affirmed that the Petitioners would not suffer loss of specific constitutional rights or authorities that the Petitioners had argued, which Arteria said was merely an assumption. The Petitioners, he added, couldn’t prove that the benefits that they receive would be eliminated due to the transfer.

Also read: Transfer from ASABRI Program to Employment BPJS Challenged 

Arteria also explained that the articles in the 1945 Constitution that the Petitioners use as touchstones are unrelated to their perceived constitutional loss as participants of PT Asabris’s insurance program.

"Because the provisions in Article 57 letter e and Article 65 paragraph (1) of the BPJS Law do not reduce the Petitioners’ constitutional rights and/or authorities in obtaining […] recognition, guarantee, protection, fair legal certainty, equal treatment before the law, convenience, and special treatment to obtain the same opportunities and benefits," Arteria said before the panel of justices led by Chief Justice Anwar Usman. According to the House, those provisions have actually fulfilled the provisions of Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution by providing fair legal certainty. 

Only Receive Pension Benefit

The Manpower Ministry’s Director General for Industrial Relations and Social Security Haiyani Rumondang explained on behalf of the Government that the Petitioners as military retirees are retired, so they are only beneficiaries of PT Asabri’s pension program, not of its occupational accident benefit, old age benefit, and death benefit from PT Asabri.

“Therefore, […] the Petitioners did not suffer loss as beneficiaries of occupational accident benefit, old age benefit, and death benefit from PT Asabri,” she said.

Rumondang also said that the Petitioners are given clear pension benefits funded by the state budget (APBN) as regulated by Law No. 6 of 1966 on the Provision of Pensions, Retirement Allowance, and Benefits to Military Volunteers as well as the Government Regulation No. 102 of 2015 on Social Insurance for Indonesian National Army Soldiers, Members of the Republic of Indonesia’s National Police and Civil Servants in the Defense and Police of the Republic of Indonesia.

“Therefore, in 2029 the Petitioners will not suffer loss because of program transfer from PT Asabri to the Employment BPJS. Consequently, in the Government’s opinion, the Petitioners do not have legal standing,” Rumondang stressed.

The Government argued that the Preamble to the 1945 Constitution mandated that the state’s objective is to improve people’s welfare. In the amendment to the 1945 Constitution, the purpose of the state is emphasized through a social security system for all people. In addition, in the TAP MPR (People’s Consultative Assembly Decree), the president mandated a comprehensive and integrated national social security. Therefore, the Petitioners’ argument of such losses is inaccurate.

Retired Indonesian military (TNI) officials Endang Hairudin, M. Dwi Purnomo, Adis Banjere, and Adieli Hulu challenge Article 65 paragraph (1) of the BPJS Law that reads, "PT Asabri (Persero) shall transfer its social insurance program for the Armed Forces of the Republic of Indonesia and pension program to BPJS Employment at the latest by 2029." 

The Petitioners argued that the article potentially harm the Petitioners\' constitutional rights. 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. 

The Petitioners also challenge Article 57 of the BPJS Law that recognizes PT Askes (Persero) and stipulates that it continues to implement the health insurance program, including accepting registration of new participants until the operation of the Healthcare BPJS. PT Jamsostek (Persero) continues to carry out its operation and accepts registration of new participants until the operation of the BPJS Employment. Article 57 instructs that Article 65 paragraph (1) of the BPJS Law to be implemented no later than 2029. (Nano Tresna Arfana/Halim/LA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti

Translation uploaded on 7/8/2020

---