Legal counsel M. Sholeh conveying the revisions to the petition virtually at the judicial review hearing of Law No. 40 of 2004 on National Social Security System (SJSN) as amended by Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation, Tuesday (4/12/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

---

Tuesday, April 12, 2022 | 10:47 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) held another judicial review hearing of Law No. 40 of 2004 on National Social Security System (SJSN) as amended by Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation in the panel courtroom on Tuesday, April 12, 2022. The Petitioner, Samiani, had previously asserted that Article 35 paragraph (2) and Article 37 paragraph (1) of the SJSN Law as amended by the Job Creation Law contradicted Article 28D paragraph (1), Article 28H paragraph (3), and Article 28H paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution.

Legal counsel for the case No. 33/PUU-XX/2022, M. Sholeh, conveyed the revisions to the petition, which included more elaboration on the Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK) No. 2 of 2021 on the latest procedural law. The Petitioner had also observed the SJSN Law as amended by the Job Creation Law was only revised in Article 46 on unemployment benefits (JKP).

“Meanwhile, the a quo Law does not change Article 35 paragraph (2) and Article 37 paragraph (1) of the SJSN Law,” Sholeh said before Constitutional Justices Suhartoyo (panel chair), Manahan M. P. Sitompul, and (Saldi Isra).

In the revised petition, Sholeh revealed, had also been added elaboration on the fact that even when a worker is fired due to any mistake or criminal act, they must receive old age benefits (JHT) since it has been paid by the worker in question and the employer. In other words, any mistake or crime by the worker does not exclude them from JHT, which is rightfully theirs.

Also read: Laid Off Without Old Age Benefits, Citizen Challenges SJSN Law

At the preliminary hearing, the Petitioner explained that old age means when the worker is no longer able to work, as in old, become an entrepreneur, or laid off. However, the government’s stipulation in the a quo articles does not provide guarantee for participants who are laid off or resign. Thus, he considers it discriminatory because workers with total disability get JHT (old age pension) benefits, while workers who are laid off must wait until they are 56 years old to get it. He believes that the legislatures give for workers who experience permanent total disability, die, and retire different treatment than they do workers who resign and are laid off.

Therefore, in the petitum, the Petitioner requested that the Court declare Article 35 paragraph (2) and Article 37 paragraph (1) of the Law No. 40 of 2004 as amended by Law No. 11 of 2020 conditionally unconstitutional insofar as both be added with the phrase “resign and is laid off”.

Writer        : Sri Pujianti
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Raisa Ayuditha
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 4/12/2022 13:51 WIB

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

---