The Petitioner’s attorney delivering the subjects of the petition of the judicial review of the Social Security Administrative Body (BPJS), Monday (10/8) 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 a preliminary hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 24 of 2011 on the Social Security Administrative Body (BPJS) against the 1945 Constitution on Monday, August 10, 2020 in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. The case No. 62/PUU-XVIII/2020 was filed by Koko Koharudin, who challenged Article 18 paragraph (1) of the BPJS Law, which reads, “The Government shall register the Contribution Assistance recipients and their family members as Participants with the BPJS.”

In the panel hearing led by Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams, the Petitioner through attorney E’et Susita claimed to have been disadvantaged by the a quo article because he had difficulty maintaining membership of the contribution assistance recipient (PBI) BPJS. E’et said that the Petitioner’s BPJS membership was deactivated since January 28, 2018. He was laid off by PT Jogja Tugu Trans in 2017, so his earning employee (PPU) BPJS was discontinued and he was unable to paying for its installments.

“In the a quo  petition, the Petitioner doesn’t question the mandatory BPJS membership but requests that (it) not burden (him) as an employee who was laid off,” he said.

E’et also said that the Presidential Regulation No. 82 of 2018 on Health Insurance mentions that BPJS members who are laid off can enjoy BPJS facilities until 6 months after employment termination and afterward have the right to contribution assistance recipient BPJS based on a decision by the industrial relations court or if the company undergoes a merger that leads to a layoff, or if the company goes bankrupt, or if the employees who are laid off suffer from permanent illnesses or disabilities.

Because the Petitioner didn’t meet those conditions, he couldn’t join contribution assistance recipient BPJS, so he requested the Court to declare Article 18 paragraph (1) of the BPJS Law unconstitutional insofar as it is interpreted as eliminating the right of citizens who have no economic capacity to pay for BPJS contribution to register as contribution assistance recipient BPJS participants.

In response, Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo advised the Petitioner to revise the petition and make it brief. Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams advised him to elaborate on his constitutional damage.

Writer: Utami Argawati
Editor: Nur R.
PR: Fitri Yuliana
Photographer: Gani
Translator: Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 8/11/2020 18:17 WIB

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case where any differences occur between the English and the Indonesian version, the Indonesian version will prevail.