Jokowi is expected not to violate the Constitution and comply with the Supreme Court regarding contributions to health BPJS

YAKARTA, KOMPAS.com – Andalas University expert on constitutional law, Feri Amsari, said President Joko Widodo’s move to increase BPJS health rates again has the potential to violate the constitution.

According to Feri, as a state organizer, Jokowi should have complied with Supreme Court Decree (MA) No. 7 / P / HUM / 2020 and not raise the rates again.

“As a state organizer, the president should not ignore the ruling of the Supreme Court,” said Feri Kompas.com, Wednesday (05/13/2020).

“The president must be obedient and not force the situation,” he said.

Read also: The government increases the contributions of BPJS to health, this is the response of the MS

Feri considered that by increasing BPJS contributions through the issuance of Perpres Number 64 of 2020, Jokowi ignored the law or disobedience of the law.

Because Jokowi’s attempt to increase the BPJS Health fee was once canceled by the Supreme Court.

In February 2020, the Supreme Court issued Judgment Number 7 / P / HUM / 2020 canceling Presidential Regulation Number 75 of 2019.

Therefore, by issuing a new Perpres that also contains an increase in BPJS rates, Jokowi is considered to be against the court ruling.

“If it’s intentional, the president can be dangerous because it can be a reason to violate the constitution,” said Feri.

Also read: Jokowi Increases BPJS Contributions To Health Again, KPCDI Sues Supreme Court Immediately

Feri said the Supreme Court decision was final and binding on everyone, including the President.

This is stated in the Law of the Supreme Court and the Law of the Judiciary.

Article 31 of the MA Law establishes that the null legislation has no binding legal force.

“It means that it can no longer be used, including that it cannot be reused,” Feri said.

Also read: BPJS Kesehatan: Perpres number 64 of 2020 has implemented the MA decision

Feri said the Supreme Court ruling essentially prohibits the government from increasing BPJS contributions to health.

Therefore, even though the increase in BPJS contributions as stipulated in Presidential Decree Number 64 of 2020 is slightly different from the previous increase, the president’s step to increase BPJS contributions is still unjustified.

“Whatever the amount (increase in contributions), if so, the increase (contribution) from BPJS is not correct,” said Feri.