BP Tapera Commissioner, Heru Pudyo Nugroho, representing Public Housing Savings Management Agency (BP Tapera) as a Related Party during a judicial review hearing of Law Number 4 od 2016 on Public Housing Savings (Tapera Law) on Tuesday (26/11). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

Jakarta (MKRI) - The Public Housing Savings Management Agency (BP Tapera) became a Related Party in the judicial review hearing of Law Number 4 of 2016 on Public Housing Savings (Tapera Law) on Tuesday, November 26, 2024. BP Tapera Commissioner Heru Pudyo Nugroho said the Tapera scheme is not a financial burden for the Indonesian people as argued by the Petitioners. This is because the funds saved will not be lost and decreased and returned at the end of the participation period along with the results of their compounding in accordance with the provisions of Article 14 paragraph (2) of the Tapera Law.

“The Related Party assumes that the Tapera scheme program cannot be considered a financial burden for the people of Indonesia,” Heru said in the hearing of Case Numbers 86, 96, and 134/PUU-XXII/2024 at the Constitutional Court (MK) Courtroom, Central Jakarta.

He explained, by collecting mandatory contributions from participants, the Tapera scheme can provide access to affordable housing finance while reducing dependence on government funds originating from the State Budget (APBN). The disbursement of Tapera funds will be carried out with certain limits in accordance with the basis of calculation to determine the multiplication of the amount of participant deposits as stipulated in Article 15 paragraph (1), paragraph (2), and paragraph (4) of the Government Regulation (PP) on Tapera, so that the amount of disbursement is calculated proportionally and fairly and does not cause a financial burden to the Indonesian people.

According to Heru, the Tapera program provides benefits including lower and fixed housing finance interest compared to commercial housing finance schemes from other financial services. There are various home ownership assistance options and Tapera participants get capitalization results from deposits of at least the average standard deposit interest rate prevailing in state banks for a period of one year for all participants.

In addition, Heru also denied the Petitioners' arguments which mentioned concerns about the misuse of Tapera funds related to the findings of the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK) which stated that 124,960 participants had not received refunds totaling Rp 567.45 billion. BP Tapera claimed that there were no state losses that had to be followed up as monitoring the settlement of state compensation within BP Tapera until Semester II of 2023. BPK had concluded that BP Tapera's follow-up to the recommendations on BPK's findings was appropriate.

Furthermore, Heru said that one of the main risks of the Contractual Saving scheme is liquidity risk, which is the risk that the entity does not have sufficient funds to fulfill loan requests when the contract matures. This risk can be a significant challenge if the savings collective does not have adequate funding sources.

Affordable Housing Solutions

Heru revealed that the Tapera program in Indonesia is designed to raise and provide sustainable long-term low-cost funds. To achieve this goal, the Tapera Program adopts the advantages of the two international schemes, namely that Tapera Funds can be sourced from membership-based funds such as in the Housing Provident Fund scheme to ensure sustainability of contributions and continuity of funding and Tapera Funds can also be sourced from other sources of funds such as in the Contractual Saving scheme, to strengthen liquidity availability and reduce funding risks.

“With this combination, the Tapera Program aims to provide affordable, sustainable, and inclusive housing solutions for the Indonesian people. This scheme guarantees the availability of funds and ensures effective fund management to support the development of the housing sector in Indonesia,” Heru said.

Tapera Fund Management

This hearing also includes testimony from the President/Government. Head of the Legal Policy Strategy Agency of the Ministry of Law Andry Indrady, representing the President/Government, said that by regulating compulsory membership and implementing it in accordance with the principle of mutual cooperation, the use of the State Budget can be focused on providing housing and settlements for low-income groups below the minimum wage who need a house but do not have the ability to access housing finance.

“If the word “mandatory” in the provisions of Article 7 paragraph (1) of the Tapera Law is changed to voluntary, then housing financing for MBR (low income society) will remain centered on the use of the state budget because Tapera funds that will be managed as housing financing for MBR will not be collected (no collective savings are formed) with a voluntary participation mechanism, which in turn hampers the state's efforts to fulfill the right of all citizens to live as stipulated in the provisions of Article 28H paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia,” Andry explained.

According to him, the removal of BP Tapera can have various implications, especially for the management of Tapera Funds sourced from the transfer of Civil Servant Housing Savings (Taperum PNS) assets and FLPP Funds, which are currently under the control of BP Tapera. With the liquidation of Bapertarum PNS and the Public Service Agency for the Management of Housing Financing Funds (BLU PPDPP), the management of Tapera Funds sourced from the transfer of Taperum PNS assets and the management of FLPP Funds have been transferred to BP Tapera. If BP Tapera is eliminated, the Tapera Fund sourced from the transfer of Taperum PNS assets and the FLPP Fund will lose the legal entity that manages it.

This raises several potential problems, including the loss of fund managers and a regulatory and governance vacuum. Therefore, Andry emphasized that the President requested that the Constitutional Court reject the petitions in these three cases and declare that the Tapera Law does not conflict with the provisions of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and still has binding legal force.

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

Hearing on Tapera Law Postponed Again

Government: Obligation to Become Tapera Participants in Line with the Principle of Mutual Cooperation

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.

Author: Mimi Kartika
Editor: N. Rosi.
PR: Fauzan Febriyan
Translators: Rizky Kurnia Chaesario/Yuniar Widiastuti

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.

---