Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
2026 Hak Cipta Milik Hukumonline.com
Produk Pilihan
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami Anne Aprina Priskila, Agus Sahbani
There has been much discussion and various views expressed about Indonesia’s new social security system since its inception. While there is a general consensus that the program is important to guarantee citizen’s rights, the implementation of the program has been subject to criticism and suggestions for improvement.Muchamad Ali Safa'at, a law lecturer from Universitas Brawijaya, says that social security (jaminan sosial or jamsos) is indeed a right of every citizen, and therefore the government must do its best to provide it. However, Mr. Safa’at questions whether the implementation of jamsos has to be exclusively executed by the Social Security Agency (Badan Penyelenggara Jaminan Sosial – BPJS).
"The issue is whether or not BPJS should be the sole institution to execute jamsos,” said Mr. Safa'at when testifying as an expert at the judicial review trial on the BPJS Law at the Constitutional Court on Tuesday.
This issue was addressed by Mr. Safa’at addressed given that private companies provided jamsos programs before the BPJS era.He also made reference to the Constitutional Court decision which states that jamsos must cover all Indonesian citizens. Based on these consideratons, the existence of private companies that provide jamsos are necessary to ensure all Indonesian citizens are covered, especially the underprivileged.
“To reject the roles of such institutions, is to also reject the constitutional mandate for a national security system. In conclusion, BPJS might not be the sole institution to provide jamsos and function as the sole administrator and implementing entity," asserted Mr. Safa’at.
The judicial review of the BPJS Law was filed by several private insurance companies, PT Papan Nirwana, PT Cahaya Medika Health Care, PT Ramamuza Bhakti Husada, and PT Abdiwaluyo Mitrasejahtera. These companies are questioning the provisions under the BPJS Law that mean companies and employers cannot choose between competitive social security providers.
More specifically, six articles under the BPJS Law are being challeged. The targeted provisions are Article 15 (1); Article 16 (1) and (2); Article 17 (1) and (2) (c); and Article 19 (1)-(3). These articles mandate employers and companies to choose health insurance provided by BPJS.According to the applicants, the current system is in essence a form of monopoly over health insurance services and contravenes Article 28I (1) and (2), as well as Article 28H (3) of the 1945 Constitution.
(hot/kc)
Anne Aprina Priskila, Agus Sahbani
There has been much discussion and various views expressed about Indonesia’s new social security system since its inception. While there is a general consensus that the program is important to guarantee citizen’s rights, the implementation of the program has been subject to criticism and suggestions for improvement.Muchamad Ali Safa'at, a law lecturer from Universitas Brawijaya, says that social security (jaminan sosial or jamsos) is indeed a right of every citizen, and therefore the government must do its best to provide it. However, Mr. Safa’at questions whether the implementation of jamsos has to be exclusively executed by the Social Security Agency (Badan Penyelenggara Jaminan Sosial – BPJS).
"The issue is whether or not BPJS should be the sole institution to execute jamsos,” said Mr. Safa'at when testifying as an expert at the judicial review trial on the BPJS Law at the Constitutional Court on Tuesday.
This issue was addressed by Mr. Safa’at addressed given that private companies provided jamsos programs before the BPJS era.He also made reference to the Constitutional Court decision which states that jamsos must cover all Indonesian citizens. Based on these consideratons, the existence of private companies that provide jamsos are necessary to ensure all Indonesian citizens are covered, especially the underprivileged.
“To reject the roles of such institutions, is to also reject the constitutional mandate for a national security system. In conclusion, BPJS might not be the sole institution to provide jamsos and function as the sole administrator and implementing entity," asserted Mr. Safa’at.
The judicial review of the BPJS Law was filed by several private insurance companies, PT Papan Nirwana, PT Cahaya Medika Health Care, PT Ramamuza Bhakti Husada, and PT Abdiwaluyo Mitrasejahtera. These companies are questioning the provisions under the BPJS Law that mean companies and employers cannot choose between competitive social security providers.
More specifically, six articles under the BPJS Law are being challeged. The targeted provisions are Article 15 (1); Article 16 (1) and (2); Article 17 (1) and (2) (c); and Article 19 (1)-(3). These articles mandate employers and companies to choose health insurance provided by BPJS.According to the applicants, the current system is in essence a form of monopoly over health insurance services and contravenes Article 28I (1) and (2), as well as Article 28H (3) of the 1945 Constitution.
(hot/kc)