Health BPJS, rights or obligations?

19
Anthony Budiawan
Managing Director of the Political Economy and Policy Studies (PEPS)

IO – There are two types of levies that the government applies to its citizens. Tax and retribution. According to Law No. 28 of 2007 concerning General Provisions and Procedures for Taxation, tax­es are mandatory contributions to the state by individuals or entities that are coercive based on the law, with no direct compensation and are used for the country’s needs for the greatest prosperity of the people. The tax is coercive, and the taxpayer does not get any compen­sation for the tax payment. Coer­cive means that tax arrears can be subject to criminal sanctions, and the taxpayers can be jailed.

While retributions are fees col­lected by the government accom­panied by the delivery of goods or services. For example, fees for cleaning services, health services, funeral services, market services, parking services, and many others.

Retributions are voluntary and not coercive. Citizens who do not pay certain service fees are gen­erally not excluded from these services. And their child can still register at school. And all family members can still make an identi­ty card (KTP ) or a driver’s license (SIM). If we do not pay cleaning fees, the worst sanctions are that garbage in the house is not picked up by the janitor. The person con­cerned did not get the cleaning service.

Well, which category does the Health BPJS fee come from? Tax or retribution? Because Health BPJS has a counter-achievement na­ture, the Health BPJS fees should be retribution. Not tax. So, if some­one does not pay Health BPJS con­tributions, the worst consequence is that the person cannot get the health services provided by Health BPJS. The government cannot im­pose more sanctions than that. It cannot prevent those who have Health BPJS arrears to make an identity card or a driver’s license. Imposing sanctions like this is against the law and violates the law.

Getting an identity card is the right of every citizen who has ful­filled certain requirements. And these rights cannot be removed under any circumstances. Even the convict is also entitled to ob­tain an identity card.

Including those convicted of corruption. And also convicted of tax arrears. Besides, they are also entitled to get a driver’s license. This right is guaranteed by law. Ar­ticle 8, letter c, Law No. 24 of 2013 concerning Population Administra­tion says the Implementing Agen­cy is obliged to print, issue and distribute Population Documents. Including identity cards.

And according to Presidential Regulation No. 96 of 2018 con­cerning Requirements and Proce­dures for Population Registration and Civil Registration, Paragraph 4 regulates the procedure for is­suing electronic identity cards. Among other things, everyone who is 17 years old, or has ever been married, is entitled to an identi­ty card. There is no single article that states that a convicted person may not obtain an identity card. So, sanctions of not being able to obtain an identity card or a driv­er’s license for those having Health BPJS contribution arrears can not be justified, because it violates the Population Administration law.

Also, social security is the right of citizens guaranteed by the 1945 Constitution (2002 Amendment). Through Article 34 paragraph 2, the state is obliged to develop a so­cial security system for all people and empower those who are weak and unable to compete.

So, it is very improper if the poor who are in arrears for BPJS contributions are treated inhu­manely, more than those con­victed, by eliminating the rights inherent in citizenship, such as the right to school, and the right to obtain an identity card.

Article 34 paragraph 1 of the 1945 Constitution says “Poor peo­ple and abandoned children are nurtured by the state”. That is, ar­rears in Health BPJS contributions must be borne by the state. And not by treating the persons inhu­manely.

In contrast, even the tax ar­rears, whose sanctions are crim­inal, are still given forgiveness or amnesty, and even welcomed by the red carpet. This happened in 2008 (sunset policy), and 2016/2017 (tax amnesty). And, is there not another talk to hold a further tax amnesty? Hence, it is not wrong if someone says Indone­sia is a paradise for the rich.