---

House Commission XI Mukhamad Misbakhun about to give the House’s statement at the judicial review hearing of the Insurance Law, Tuesday (8/9) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Gani.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The material review of the Government Regulation (PP) No. 87 of 2019 on Mutual Insurance Companies is within the Supreme Court’s purview, so as the members representative body (BPA) of mutual life insurer Asuransi Jiwa Bersama (AJB) Bumiputera1912 feel disadvantaged by the regulation, which they deem in violation of the Constitutional Court Decision No. 32/PUU-XI/2013, they can petition for a material review to the Supreme Court, said House Commission XI Mukhamad Misbakhun at the material review hearing of Law No. 40 of 2014 on Insurance on Tuesday, September 8, 2020 in the Plenary Courtroom. In petition No. 32/PUU-XVIII/2020, the Petitioners challenge Article 6 paragraph (3) of the Insurance Law.

Misbakhun explained that the PP was issued to implement the provision of Article 6 paragraph (3) of the Insurance Law because of the need for a government regulation on mutual insurance companies. “Asuransi Jiwa Bersama (AJB) Bumiputera1912 is the only mutual insurance company that until now is recognized as a legal entity based on the law in Indonesia,” he said before the Court presided over by Chief Justice Anwar Usman and the other eight constitutional justices.

No Legal Interest

Misbakhun said that the House believed the a quo article didn’t reduce the Petitioners’ constitutional rights because they filed the case as insurance policyholders, while the subject of the a quo provision is the mutual insurance company. He also asserted that the Petitioners as the members representative body also needed to evidence of legal representation of the body. They cannot file a petition as individual petitioners because the a quo norm only regulates the representation of a mutual insurance company. “Therefore, the Petitioners are not the subject of the a quo provision and have no direct legal interest in the a quo case,” he concluded.

Damaging to Democracy

Bayu Dwi Anggono, expert for the Petitioners, said that six years after a Constitutional Court decision, lawmakers hadn’t affirmed the enactment of the phrase “Further provisions” that the Petitioners challenge. They even demoted the regulation on insurance, previously a law, to a government regulation. Therefore, several aspects need to be observed in reviewing the a quo case, including the nature of the Constitutional Court decision and lawmakers’ obligation to implement it.

The academic of Jember University believed that as lawmakers didn’t implement the Court’s decision, pursuant to Article 24C paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, the Petitioners may file for a judicial review to the Constitutional Court. As the Court’s decisions are legally binding, noncompliance with said decision is a violation of the 1945 Constitution.

"This cannot be allowed to continue because it can damage democracy. A coercive and alternative instrument is needed to maintain compliance, among which through re-correction or judicial review of the law,” Bayu explained from Jember in a video conference.

Also read:

Members Representative Body of Mutual Life Insurer Bumiputera Challenges Provision on Insurance

Govt: Regulation of Insurance Business Is Open Legal Policy

Nurhasanah, Ibnu Hajar, Maryono, Achmad Jazidie, Habel Melkias Suwae, Gede Sri Darma, Septina Primawati, and Khoerul Huda are the members representative body (BPA) of mutual life insurer Asuransi Jiwa Bersama (AJB) Bumiputera1912. They challenge Article 6 paragraph (3) of the Insurance Law, as they believe they have suffered constitutional loss because the a quo article 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. They believe the president and the House of Representatives (DPR) has induced a regression by amending Law No. 2 of 1992 on Insurance into Law No. 40 of 2014 on Insurance, especially the a quo article.

The Petitioners also deem the provision in violation of the Constitutional Court decision that ordered the Government and the House to form a separate law on mutual insurance. They also believe that the government regulation (PP) contradicts the existing article of association of AJB that guarantee the Petitioners’ status and authority. Before concluding the session, Chief Justice Anwar reminded that the hearing would resume on Thursday, September 24, 2020 at 11:00 WIB to hear the experts for the Petitioners.

Writer: Sri Pujianti
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari
PR: Annisa Lestari
Translator: Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 9/9/2020 13:25 WIB

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

---