Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat chairing the preliminary hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 12 of 1980 on the Financial Rights of the Chairperson and Members of High State Institutions, Wednesday (9/28/2022). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

Wednesday, September 28, 2022 | 16:25 WIB

JAKARTA (MKRI)—The preliminary hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 12 of 1980 on the Financial/Administrative Rights of Chairpersons and Members of Highest/High State Institutions and Former Chairpersons and Members of Highest/High State Institutions was held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Wednesday, September 28, 2022. The petition No. 94/PUU-XX/2022 was filed by Ahmad Agus Rianto, a driver of online motorcycle taxi (ojek) from Selopuro Subdistrict, Blitar Regency.

The Petitioner challenges Article 12 paragraphs (1) and (2); Article 13 paragraphs (1), (2), and (3); Article 14 paragraphs (1) and (2); Article 15; Article 16 paragraphs (1), (2), and (3); Article 17 paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5); Article 18 paragraphs (1) and (2); Article 19 paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4); Article 20; and Article 21 of Law No. 12 of 1980, which regulate pension for chairpersons and members of high state institutions, from requirements to payment mechanism.

The Petitioner, represented by his proxy Muhammad Sholeh, asserted virtually that the Court had ruled a similar case with Decision No. 41/PUU-XI/2013. However, he emphasized that his petition was different.

“[In that petition], the Petitioner was a member of the Sidoarjo Regency DPRD, who is now an online ojek driver. [It] questioned the discrimination where DPR (House) members received pension but DPRD members did not,” Sholeh said.

He further explained that the articles are detrimental to the Petitioner because the retribution and taxes paid by the Petitioner should be used to improve basic public services and for the construction of public infrastructure that is beneficial to the community.

“The economic situation for the last 2 years after the pandemic shows that Indonesia’s finances are not doing well. It has a debt of 7,000 trillion; there has also an increase in fuel price. The Petitioner believes it is inappropriate to allocate pension rights for state officials during the current socio-economic conditions. Therefore, he believes he has legal standing in the review of the a quo articles,” said Sholeh before Constitutional Justices Arief Hidayat (panel chair), Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh, and Wahiduddin Adams.

It would be more appropriate for these pension funds to be diverted to education and health, which would be more beneficial for the welfare of the people and in accordance with Article 23 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, the Petitioner argued.

The Petitioner also believe that state officials such as the president, ministers, regional heads, only serve for a maximum of 2 five-year terms, thus should not receive pension funds for the short tenure.

“The Petitioner does not agree with the consideration of the Constitutional Court’s Decision No. 41/PUU-XI/2013 page 25, which states: provisions governing pensions for [current and former] chairpersons and members of high/highest state institutions in Article 12, Article 13, Article 14, Article 15, Article 16, Article 17, Article 18, Article 19, Article 20, and Article 21 of Law No. 12 of 1980 is a further regulation of the pension rights of [current and former] chairpersons and members of the highest/high state institutions, in this case, among others, for members of the House of Representatives, as income received every month, is an award for service to the state or government that is not intended to waste the state budget,” Sholeh explained.

The Petitioner believes with this argument is not appropriate because it would not do for the state’s finances to allocate the pension of state officials. “In addition, the [word] ‘prosperity’ must be interpreted as in the future when the state has enough wealth in which the state budget can provide free public and private education from elementary school up to university, free healthcare without BPJS, only then can the state provide pension for state officials as a form of gratitude for their service to the country,” Sholeh emphasized.

Therefore, in the petitum, the Petitioner requested that the Court annul the a quo articles.

Justices’ Advice

Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams asked the Petitioner to describe the difference between the petition and the past one.

“Are the touchstones or legal arguments different? Please contrast the touchstones and the articles being questioned,” he said.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat asked the Petitioner to explain the background of the petition (posita). “In order for this [petition] to be granted, explain the posita that there are indeed contradictions between the articles [and the Constitution]. Is it true that Article 23 is the basis? Please study the touchstones or the constitutional basis of other articles of the Constitution,” he suggested.

Before concluding the hearing, Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat said the Petitioner had 14 workdays to revise the petition and submit it to the Registrar’s Office by October 11, 2022.

Writer        : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Raisa Ayudhita
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 10/14/2022 15:15 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.

---