Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
2026 Hak Cipta Milik Hukumonline.com
Produk Pilihan
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami Marcell Sihombing, Rofiq Hidayat
Focus Group Discussion titled "Social Welfare for House; Understanding the Public-Housing Saving Progam. Photo by: RES.
The House of Representatives (House) recently passedthe Draft Bill on Public-Housing Savings (Tabungan Perumahan Rakyat - Tapera) into law. Some parties, however, are already planning to file for a judicial review of the new Tapera Law with the Constitutional Court (MK). Indeed, according to the Indonesian Employers Association (Apindo), many issues surround the Tapera Law that require in-depth assessment through a judicial review.
“Our [the Apindo] position remains the same. We opposed the Tapera Law and will file directly for a judicial review as a plaintiff,” asserted Iftida Yasar, Apindo’s Vice-General Secretary, during a Focus Group Discussion (FGD) event titled Social Welfare for Houses; Understanding the Public-Housing Savings Program. The event was organized by the University of North Sumatra’s (USU) Alumni Association and took place at the Regional Representatives Council’s (DPD) Office on Wednesday, 24 February 2016.Mrs. Yasar firmly believes that the premium fees which will be collected from both participating employers and their workers overlap with the Workers Social-Security Agency (BPJS for workers) program, as the BPJS for Workers program already incorporates a housing premium. This means that the Tapera program will ultimately only end up burdening both employers and workers with more payment obligations every month.
“In short, this [new] program duplicates what already exists and is thus not at all helpful or creative. The program is simply a copy and paste of a similar initiative under a different premium payment structure,” asserted Mrs. Yasar.
Mrs. Yasar asserts that the government should play a role as a provider of house-ownership facilities for low-income citizens as a matter of course, instead of establishing the Tapera program, which is structurally similar to the already existing BPJS for Workers program. According to Yasar, this is the main reason why her association (Apindo) objects to the Tapera program being implemented instead of a proper public-housing program.
This kind of program ends up placing a greater burden on workers, as the government sets aside a portion of their earnings in the form of premium fees. In fact though, the government itself is mandated to provide affordable housing via the state budget, specifically for poor and for low-income citizen, while the private sector is responsible for organizing savings accounts held in certain banks via a housing-savings program.
“The Tapera Law has no clear specifications. We [Apindo] therefore plan to conduct in-depth research in order to produce some necessary pointers for a judicial review to address,” asserted Mrs. Yasar.
Irman Gusman, the Chair of the DPD, explained that his institution also intends to file for a judicial review. Unlike Apindo however, the DPD is focusing more on the deliberation mechanism used to introduce the Tapera Law. Under Constitutional Court Ruling No.92/PUU-X/2012, the deliberation mechanism must involve the House, the government, and the DPD, however the DPD was not involved in any of the deliberations of the new law. Moreover, Mr. Gusman believes, the deliberation process was completed far too quickly.
Despite the fact that the Tapera Draft Bill represents a continuation of the one deliberated during the 2009-2014 House session, the DPD should also have been involved in the deliberations which cover the 2014-2019 period. Based on this argument, Mr. Gusman considers the deliberations of the Tapera Law to be unlawful.
“The deliberation process was unlawful because it did not conform to the mechanism prescribed by the ruling of the Constitutional Court,” asserted Mr. Gusman.
Mr. Gusman further revealed that the DPD was intending to immediately organize a meeting in order to determine its next course of action. According to Gusman, a judicial review is not prohibited, and should instead be encouraged. Indeed, the right to file a judicial review is a fundamental constitutional right, provided that the reasoning underlying such an action aims to straighten out any possible mistakes in the law. More importantly, the government is mandated to provide proper housing for poor citizens and low-income citizens using a humane mechanism which does not overly burden the general public.
Zulfi Syarif Koto, Chair of the Housing and Urban Development Institute (HUDI), has lauded the spirit of the Tapera Law in that it offers a simpler way to secure home-ownership for the general public. However, Mr. Koto also admits that some provisions set out under the Tapera Law ultimately differ from the ones set out in their initial academic draft. Mr. Koto has thus also vowed to file for a judicial review, should he find any provisions which deviate from their original formulations.
Chazali H. Situmorang, Chair of the USU Alumni Association for Jakarta and its surrounding areas, is also pushing for a judicial review. However, in contrast with Apindo, which is focusing its energies on the issue of premium fees and savings, the USU will be focusing on the legal and institutional aspects of the Tapera Law. In short, the USU Alumni Association will attempt to shine a spotlight on issues not currently being addressed by either Apindo or the DPD.
“We will cover a broader spread of issues, including institutional and legal aspects of the new law, legal status, and also any inconsistencies found in Law No. 1 of 2011 on Housing and Residential Areas. It aims to be a fully comprehensive review,” asserted Mr. Situmorang.
Mr. Situmorang concluded that the USU will be joining hands with the DPD and Apindo in order to file for a judicial review of the law as it is listed under the Priority National Legislation Program for the 2016 Period. Indeed, the judicial review will be filed after the Tapera Law has been incorporated into the State Gazette and an official number has been designated to it.
(rfs/sp)
Marcell Sihombing, Rofiq Hidayat
Focus Group Discussion titled "Social Welfare for House; Understanding the Public-Housing Saving Progam. Photo by: RES.
The House of Representatives (House) recently passedthe Draft Bill on Public-Housing Savings (Tabungan Perumahan Rakyat - Tapera) into law. Some parties, however, are already planning to file for a judicial review of the new Tapera Law with the Constitutional Court (MK). Indeed, according to the Indonesian Employers Association (Apindo), many issues surround the Tapera Law that require in-depth assessment through a judicial review.
“Our [the Apindo] position remains the same. We opposed the Tapera Law and will file directly for a judicial review as a plaintiff,” asserted Iftida Yasar, Apindo’s Vice-General Secretary, during a Focus Group Discussion (FGD) event titled Social Welfare for Houses; Understanding the Public-Housing Savings Program. The event was organized by the University of North Sumatra’s (USU) Alumni Association and took place at the Regional Representatives Council’s (DPD) Office on Wednesday, 24 February 2016.Mrs. Yasar firmly believes that the premium fees which will be collected from both participating employers and their workers overlap with the Workers Social-Security Agency (BPJS for workers) program, as the BPJS for Workers program already incorporates a housing premium. This means that the Tapera program will ultimately only end up burdening both employers and workers with more payment obligations every month.
“In short, this [new] program duplicates what already exists and is thus not at all helpful or creative. The program is simply a copy and paste of a similar initiative under a different premium payment structure,” asserted Mrs. Yasar.
Mrs. Yasar asserts that the government should play a role as a provider of house-ownership facilities for low-income citizens as a matter of course, instead of establishing the Tapera program, which is structurally similar to the already existing BPJS for Workers program. According to Yasar, this is the main reason why her association (Apindo) objects to the Tapera program being implemented instead of a proper public-housing program.
This kind of program ends up placing a greater burden on workers, as the government sets aside a portion of their earnings in the form of premium fees. In fact though, the government itself is mandated to provide affordable housing via the state budget, specifically for poor and for low-income citizen, while the private sector is responsible for organizing savings accounts held in certain banks via a housing-savings program.
“The Tapera Law has no clear specifications. We [Apindo] therefore plan to conduct in-depth research in order to produce some necessary pointers for a judicial review to address,” asserted Mrs. Yasar.
Irman Gusman, the Chair of the DPD, explained that his institution also intends to file for a judicial review. Unlike Apindo however, the DPD is focusing more on the deliberation mechanism used to introduce the Tapera Law. Under Constitutional Court Ruling No.92/PUU-X/2012, the deliberation mechanism must involve the House, the government, and the DPD, however the DPD was not involved in any of the deliberations of the new law. Moreover, Mr. Gusman believes, the deliberation process was completed far too quickly.
Despite the fact that the Tapera Draft Bill represents a continuation of the one deliberated during the 2009-2014 House session, the DPD should also have been involved in the deliberations which cover the 2014-2019 period. Based on this argument, Mr. Gusman considers the deliberations of the Tapera Law to be unlawful.
“The deliberation process was unlawful because it did not conform to the mechanism prescribed by the ruling of the Constitutional Court,” asserted Mr. Gusman.
Mr. Gusman further revealed that the DPD was intending to immediately organize a meeting in order to determine its next course of action. According to Gusman, a judicial review is not prohibited, and should instead be encouraged. Indeed, the right to file a judicial review is a fundamental constitutional right, provided that the reasoning underlying such an action aims to straighten out any possible mistakes in the law. More importantly, the government is mandated to provide proper housing for poor citizens and low-income citizens using a humane mechanism which does not overly burden the general public.
Zulfi Syarif Koto, Chair of the Housing and Urban Development Institute (HUDI), has lauded the spirit of the Tapera Law in that it offers a simpler way to secure home-ownership for the general public. However, Mr. Koto also admits that some provisions set out under the Tapera Law ultimately differ from the ones set out in their initial academic draft. Mr. Koto has thus also vowed to file for a judicial review, should he find any provisions which deviate from their original formulations.
Chazali H. Situmorang, Chair of the USU Alumni Association for Jakarta and its surrounding areas, is also pushing for a judicial review. However, in contrast with Apindo, which is focusing its energies on the issue of premium fees and savings, the USU will be focusing on the legal and institutional aspects of the Tapera Law. In short, the USU Alumni Association will attempt to shine a spotlight on issues not currently being addressed by either Apindo or the DPD.
“We will cover a broader spread of issues, including institutional and legal aspects of the new law, legal status, and also any inconsistencies found in Law No. 1 of 2011 on Housing and Residential Areas. It aims to be a fully comprehensive review,” asserted Mr. Situmorang.
Mr. Situmorang concluded that the USU will be joining hands with the DPD and Apindo in order to file for a judicial review of the law as it is listed under the Priority National Legislation Program for the 2016 Period. Indeed, the judicial review will be filed after the Tapera Law has been incorporated into the State Gazette and an official number has been designated to it.
(rfs/sp)