A judicial review hearing of Law No. 4 of 2016 on Public Housing Savings, Tuesday (10/22/2024). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held another material judicial review hearing of Law No. 4 of 2016 on Public Housing Savings (Tapera Law) on Tuesday, October 22, 2024. The hearing was for three cases: No. 86/PUU-XXII/2024, 96/PUU-XXII/2024, and 134/PUU-XXII/2024.

The hearing, set to present the House of Representatives’ (DPR) and the President/Government’s testimonies, was postponed once again because both had not prepared to testify in Court. At the previous hearing on Monday, October 7, the Court had postponed the session for the same reason.

“Today’s hearing was supposed to present the House’s testimony, but they are not able to attend, thus it will be rescheduled. Meanwhile, the Government has submitted a written testimony, but the official set to present it was indisposed due to a high-level meeting with the new minister of the Merah Putih Cabinet*. Therefore, the Court convened [and decided] to allow the presentation of these testimonies at the following hearing. The next hearing will commence on Wednesday, November 6, 2024,” Chief Justice Suhartoyo announced.

Also read:

Parameters of Mandatory Public Housing Savings Participation Questioned

Labor Unions Question the Obligation of Workers to Become Tapera Participants

Petitioners Present Survey on Rejection of Public Housing Savings

Petitioners Mention China’s Failed Tapera Program

Govt, House Not Ready, Hearing on Tapera Law Postponed

The case No. 86/PUU-XXII/2024 was filed by Leonardo Olefins Hamonangan and Ricky Donny Lamhot Marpaung. They challenge Article 7 paragraphs (1) and (2) and Article 72 paragraph (1) letter c of the Tapera Law, which they believe are 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.

The case No. 96/PUU-XXII/2024 was filed by the Confederation of All Indonesian Labor Unions (KSBSI). It is claiming 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).

Lastly, case No. 134/PUU-XXII/2024 was filed by several workers unions, i.e. the Federation of National Worker Unions (FKSPN), Federation of Energy Chemical and Mining Worker Union-Confederation of Indonesian Worker Unions (FSP KEP KSPSI), and the Federation of Tourism and Creative Economy Workers Union-Confederation of Indonesian Worker Unions. They challenge Article 7 paragraph (1) and Article 9 paragraph (1) of the Tapera Law, which they believe are in violation of Article 23A, Article 28D paragraph (1), and Article 28H paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. They believe the mandatory Tapera membership is unconstitutional. They argue the provision is mandatory or coercive as if it were a tax, while it is not supposed to be a coercive levy for low-income workers (MBR) and non-MBR.

*Red-and-white cabinet, a reference to the Indonesian national flag

Author         : Sri Pujianti
Editor          : N. Rosi.
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.

---