Jakarta, MKRI - The Constitutional Court (MK) declared the judicial review petition on Law No. 4 of 2016 on Public Housing Savings (Tapera Law) inadmissible. The decision pronouncement hearing to test Article 1 paragraph (3) and Article 9 paragraph (2) of Tapera Law was held on Tuesday, August 20, 2024.

On the legal consideration reading out by Justice Enny Nurbaningsih, the Court states that a preliminary hearing on the petition was held on July 23, 2024. The justices’ panel advised the Petitioner to revise his petitum in accordance with the format commonly used as stipulated under Article 10 paragraph (2) letter d of the Constitutional Court’s Regulation (PMK) No. 2 of 2021.

However, the Petitioner was absent from the follow-up hearing with the agenda to examine the petition revision, and he did not submit the revision. Thus, the Court could not examine whether the advice had been accommodated. Regarding the initial petition, it is found that the petitum is intertwined but contradictory. The Petitioner requests the Court to declare that the norm under the article being reviewed contradicts the 1945 Constitution conditionally by adding the phrase “voluntary”.

“Therefore, it is impossible for the Court to grant one of them, considering the petitum contradicts each other. Besides, if examined further, the petitum is formulated unlike the common petitum as intended by Article 10 paragraph (2) letter d of PMK No. 2 of 2021. Based on the explanation of legal consideration, the Court is of the opinion that the petitioner’s petition is unclear or vague,” Justice Enny said.

Also read: Freelancer Challenges the Constitutionality of Tapera Participation Obligation for Workers in Indonesia

On the preliminary hearing held on Monday, July 23, 2024, Ferdian Sutatnto and Laura Donna, as legal counsel, delivered the subject matter of the petition. The Petitioner argued that the Tapera regulation will take place in 2027 and currently has yet to pose constitutional harm for him, but it potentially will disadvantage every Indonesian citizen. The Petitioner also stated that the money earned as a worker will have to be given to the state; meanwhile, saving should be optional and voluntary, Ferdian added. Therefore, the enactment of the Tapera Law in 2027 is certainly contradictory to Article 28G of the 1945 Constitution.

For this reason, in his petition, the Petitioner requests the Panel of Justices to declare Article 1 paragraph (3) and Article 9 paragraph (2) of the Tapera Law Article 1 paragraph (3), which reads: “Tapera participants, hereinafter referred to as participants, are every Indonesian citizen and foreign national holding a visa with the intention of working in the territory of Indonesia for at least 6 (six) months who have paid deposits” to become ‘Tapera participants, hereinafter referred to as participants, are every Indonesian citizen and foreign national holding a visa with the intention of working in the territory of Indonesia for at least 6 (six) months who have paid deposits, with their own voluntary wishes’. As for Article 9 paragraph (2), which originally reads: “Independent Workers as referred to in Article 7 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) must register themselves with BP Tapera to become participants does not have binding legal force, so that Article 1 paragraph (3) and Article 9 paragraph (2) of the Tapera Law must be interpreted as “Independent Workers as referred to in Article 7 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) must register themselves with BP Tapera to become participants, with their own voluntary wishes.” (*)

Author: Sri Pujianti
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR: Fauzan Febriyan

Translator: Rizky Kurnia Chaesario (NL)

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.