The Tapera Law Is Sued About Mandatory Participation, The Constitutional Court Decides Today

Constitutional Court Building (Diah Ayu/VOI)

JAKARTA - The Constitutional Court is scheduled to decide on three material testing cases in a number of articles in Law Number 4 of 2016 concerning Public Housing Savings (UU Tapera) on Monday 29 September.

Judging from the Constitutional Court page, the three judicial review cases of the Tapera Law that will be pronounced, among others, Case Number 86/PUU-XXII/2024, 96/PUU-XXII/2024, and 134/PUU-XXII/2024.

"Date: Monday, September 29, 2025, 13.30 WIB. Event: pronunciation of decisions/decisions. Place: Building I of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia," said the statement from the court's website quoted by ANTARA Jakarta, Monday, September 29.

Case Number 86 was filed by MSME actor Ricky Donny Lamhot Marpaung and private employee Leonardo Olefins Haminangan. They tested Article 7 paragraph (1), paragraph (2), paragraph (3), and Article 72 paragraph (1) letter e and f of the Tapera Law.

Case Number 96 was requested by the National Executive Council of the Confederation of All-Indonesian Trade Unions by testing Article 7 paragraph (1), Article 9 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2), Article 16, Article 17 paragraph (1), Article 54 paragraph (1), and Article 72 paragraph (1) of the Tapera Law.

Case Number 134 was recorded by eleven trade union federations, including the Federation of National Workers Union Units, which tested Article 7 paragraph (1) and Article 9 paragraph (1) of the Tapera Law.

Broadly speaking, the petitioners in the three cases both questioned the constitutionality of the norms of Article 7 paragraph (1), Article 9 paragraph (1), and Article 72 paragraph (1) of the Tapera Law.

Article 7 paragraph (1) stipulates that every worker and independent worker who earns at least the minimum wage must be a Tapera participant. The petitioners ask that the norm of the article be changed to an option, not an obligation.

Article 9 paragraph (1) reads "the worker as referred to in Article 7 paragraph (1) must be registered by the employer". The petitioners also questioned the nature of the obligation of the norms of this article.

Meanwhile, Article 71 paragraph (1) stipulates that participants, employers, and BP Tapera who violate the provisions, including Article 7 paragraph (1) and Article 9 paragraph (1), can be subject to administrative sanctions. The petitioners requested that the article be revoked.

In addition to the judicial review case of the Tapera Law, the Court will also decide on the judicial review of Law Number 11 of 1969 concerning Retired Employees and Retired Widows/Employees, Law Number 19 of 2003 concerning SOEs, and Law Number 24 of 2013 concerning Population Administration.

Then, the judicial review case of Law Number 2 of 2025 concerning Mineral and Coal Mining, Law Number 7 of 2017 concerning Elections, Law Number 10 of 2016 concerning Regional Head Elections, Law Number 12 of 2011 concerning the Establishment of Legislation Regulations, as well as three cases of election disputes in Bangka Regency.