Chief Justice Suhartoyo, during the joint hearing of Case No. 86/PUU-XXII/2024, Case No. 96/PUU-XXII/2024, and Case No. 134/PUU-XXII/2024 on the judicial review of Law No.4 of 2016 on Public Housing Savings (Tapera Law), Wednesday (30/4/2025). Photo by MKRI/Bay.

---

Jakarta (MKRI) – The Constitutional Court postponed the joint hearing of Case No. 86/PUU-XXII/2024, Case No. 96/PUU-XXII/2024, Case No. 134/PUU-XXII/2024 on the judicial review of Law No. 4 of 2016 on Public Housing Savings (Tapera Law) against the 1945 Constitution. The hearing of the three cases will be rescheduled on Wednesday, May 21, 2025, at 10.30 Western Indonesia Time.

“The hearing is postponed to Wednesday, May 21, 2025, at 10.30. All parties should be present, [including] the government and related parties without summons,” Chief Justice Suhartoyo stated during the hearing, which was originally scheduled to hear testimony from the Petitioner’s witnesses and expert, on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, at the Plenary Courtroom, Jakarta.

Meanwhile, Chief Justice Suhartoyo stated that the Court limited the number of experts and witnesses presented in the hearing. Each of the parties, consisting of the Petitioner, the government, and related parties, may only present two experts and two witnesses in the hearing. Meanwhile, the parties may submit additional written testimony.

Chief Justice Suhartoyo stated that the Court gave one more chance for each of the Petitioners to present experts and witnesses in the hearing. Otherwise, they may submit written testimony. It is because the court must adhere to the principle of a fast and simple hearing.

“We give one more chance as a last one, because the Court is currently handling many cases, so if a hearing is postponed, it will make a fast and simple hearing unachievable,” Chief Justice Suhartoyo stated.

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

BP Tapera: Tapera Scheme Is Not a Financial Burden

Expert: Tapera Mandatory Program May Lower Investment and Increase Employment Termination

The Petitioners questioned, among other things, Article 7 paragraphs (1), which reads, “Every employee and self-employed person who earns at least the minimum wage shall be obliged to become a participant.” Then, Article 9 paragraph (1) of the Tapera Law reads, “Employee as referred to in Article 7 paragraph (1) must be registered by the Employer.”

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.

Read more:

Petition of Case No. 86/PUU-XXII/2024

Petition of Case No. 96/PUU-XXII/2024

Petition of Case No. 134/PUU-XXII/2024 (All in Indonesian language)

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.

---