---

The Petitioner’s attorneys attending the ruling hearing of the judicial review of the Social Security Administrative Body (BPJS) virtually, Monday (26/10) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Gani.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) rejected the judicial review petition of Law No. 24 of 2011 on the Social Security Administrative Body (BPJS) on Monday, October 26, 2020. The petition 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 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.

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. 

Also read:

Layoff Causing Difficulty Paying Contribution, BPJS Law Challenged 

Petition on BPJS Law Revised 

In the legal considerations read out by Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams, the Court stated that one can understand a law by understanding the implementing regulations for the law without judging the legality of the regulations as long as, among other things, the norms of the law being reviewed do not regulate the things being petitioned, but within in fair reasoning the provisions referred to do not violate the 1945 Constitution, or the constitutionality issue of the law being petitioned for review is related to the absence or unclarity of regulations; and as long as the a quo law mandates further provisions in other statutory regulations.

The Court also believed Article 18 paragraph (1) of the BPJS Law didn’t violate the 1945 Constitution. The BPJS Law doesn’t regulate the registration procedure for prospective BPJS PBI participants, but orders further regulation in other laws and regulations. Further implementation of the BPJS Law is contained in the Presidential Regulation (Perpres) No. 82 of 2018 on Health Insurance and the Regulation of the Minister of Social Affairs (Permensos) No. 21 of 2019 on the Requirements and Procedure for Changing Data on Health Insurance Contribution Beneficiaries.

Without intending to assess the legality of the two regulations, the Court believed the two implementing regulations for the BPJS Law regulate the procedure for changing the membership status on Healthcare BPJS and/or for registering prospective BPJS PBI participants. Therefore, according to the Court, Article 18 paragraph (1) of the BPJS Law in conjunction with Perpres No. 82 of 2018 and Permensos No. 21 of 2019 regulate the matters questioned by the Petitioner in obtaining healthcare and other public services through participation in the Healthcare BPJS.

The Court didn’t have the authority to assess and decide whether the Petitioner’s participation will be included in the PBI category or not. Therefore, the Petitioner’s argument on the unconstitutionality of Article 18 paragraph (1) of the BPJS Law was legally groundless.

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

Translation uploaded on 10/27/2020 20:11 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.

---