The Government’s proxy asking that the judicial review hearing of Law No. 4 of 2016 on Public Housing Savings, Monday (10/7/2024). 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) for two cases: case No. 86/PUU-XXII/2024 filed by Leonardo Olefins Hamonangan and Ricky Donny Lamhot Marpaung (Petitioners I and II) and case No. 96/PUU-XXII/2024 filed by the Confederation of All Indonesian Labor Unions (KSBSI). The hearing took place on Monday, October 7, 2024.

This third hearing was supposed to present testimonies by the House of Representatives (DPR) and the Government. It was presided over by Chief Justice Suhartoyo, Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra, and seven other constitutional justices. However, both the Government and the House were not prepared to respond to the Petitioners’ arguments.

“Both institutions corresponded with the Court and stated that their testimonies could not be presented today since they needed more preparation. The House asked that they be summoned for the next hearing. This means both testimonies cannot be presented today,” said Chief Justice Suhartoyo.

Also read:
Parameters of Mandatory Public Housing Savings Participation Questioned
Petitioners Present Survey on Rejection of Public Housing Savings

At the preliminary hearing on Monday, August 5, the Petitioners of case No. 86/PUU-XXII/2024 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,” they 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.

Also read:
Labor Unions Confederation: Mandatory Housing Savings Burden Laborers, Independent Workers
Confederation of Labor Unions Affirm Arguments Against Public Housing Savings

At the preliminary hearing on Tuesday, August 6, the Petitioner of case No. 96/PUU-XXII/2024 claimed that Article 7 paragraph (1), Article 9 paragraphs (1) and (2), Article 16, Article 17 paragraph (1), Article 54 paragraph (1), and 72 paragraph (1) of the Tapera Law are in violation of Article 28D paragraph (2), Article 28I paragraph (2), and Article 34 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. It argues that the wages of independent workers/laborers are very low and even insufficient to afford a decent life. However, they are required to pay substantial social security contributions including Tapera, which overlaps with employment BPJS (social security).

In addition, workers are obligated to participate in Tapera and employers are obligated to pay Tapera deposits, but only participants who do not own a house are entitled to this housing financing benefits. In addition, Tapera is not mandatory for workers/laborers and employers, making the norms unfair and/or discriminatory. Therefore, in the petitum, the Petitioner request that the Court declare Article 7 paragraph (1), Article 9 paragraphs (1) and (2), Article 16, Article 17 paragraph (1), Article 54 paragraph (1), and 72 paragraph (1) of the Tapera Law unconstitutional.

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

---