Petition revision hearing of the judicial review of the Social Security Administrative Body (BPJS) through video conference, Tuesday (1/9) 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 petition revision hearing of the material review of Law No. 24 of 2011 on the Social Security Administrative Body (BPJS) on Tuesday, September 1, 2020 in the Plenary Courtroom. The case No. 62/PUU-XVIII/2020 was filed by Koko Koharudin, who challenges 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.”

At the panel hearing led by Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams, attorney E’et Susita said on behalf of the Petitioner that the petition had been revised following the justices’ advice at the preliminary hearing. The Petitioner revised the part on the Constitutional Court’s authorities, added evidence, and shortened the petitum into four points. He added an elaboration of his constitutional damage when he was still employed and after his employment was terminated, to support his legal standing.

Also read: Layoff Causing Difficulty Paying Contribution, BPJS Law Challenged 

At the preliminary hearing, the Petitioner claimed to have been disadvantaged by the a quo article because he had difficulty maintaining membership of the contribution assistance recipient (PBI) BPJS. His 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 pay 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.

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. 

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

Translation uploaded on 9/2/2020 14:48 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.