Leonardo Olefins Hamonangan and Ricky Donny Lamhot Marpaung at the petition revision hearing for the judicial review of Law No. 4 of 2016 on Public Housing Savings, Thursday (8/22/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held another material judicial review hearing of Law No. 4 of 2016 on Public Housing Savings (Tapera Law)—filed by Leonardo Olefins Hamonangan and Ricky Donny Lamhot Marpaung (Petitioners I and II)—on Thursday, August 22, 2024. The petition revision hearing for case No. 86/PUU-XXII/2024 was presided over by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra and Constitutional Justices M. Guntur Hamzah and Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh in one of the Court’s panel courtrooms.

Legal counsel Syamsul Jahidin conveyed the revisions to the petition, including to the Petitioners’ legal standing, constitutional rights harmed by the enactment of the norms, and the reasons behind the petition (posita).

“This provision is in effect in seven years, based on Article 68 of the Government Regulation (PP) No. 25 of 2020 on the implementation of public housing savings. In addition, the Petitioners have attached a survey on the rejection of the public housing savings,” he said.

Also read: Parameters of Mandatory Public Housing Savings Participation Questioned

At the preliminary hearing on Monday, August 5, 2024, the Petitioners conveyed their petition to challenge Article 7 paragraphs (1) and (2) and Article 72 paragraph (1) letter c of the Tapera Law against Article 28D paragraph (1) and Article 27 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. They believe the mandatory Tapera would drain low-income people, while the cost of living is getting higher and wages are deducted for BPJS and other costs. Petitioner I, a private employee, will have his salary deducted 3% for Tapera, thus adding to his financial burden.

The Petitioners argued that Article 7 paragraph (3) of the Tapera Law could lead to ambiguous parameter to determine who should participate in Tapera, such as whether it should start at the age on twenty or after one is married. The word “or,” the argued, is a legal loophole that could be used for unmarried workers to delay participation in the savings. This, Petitioner I asserted, means unfair treatment and legal uncertainty.

Meanwhile, Petitioner II who is an MSME businessman, asserted that due to the articles, he would have to allocate 3% from his income. He found sanctions of suspension and revocation of business license for non-complying businesspeople very burdensome and financially detrimental. The lack of both clear parameter and tiered sanctions on self-employed persons could potentially harm his constitutional rights.

Author            : Sri Pujianti
Editor             : Nur R.
PR                 : Fauzan F.
Translator       : Yuniar Widiastuti (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.

---