The Constitutional Court conducted the first trial for Act No.37 Year 2004 on Bankruptcy and Postponement of Loan Payment Obligation (Act on Bankruptcy), filed by M. Komarudin and Muhammad Hafidz as the management of Central Leader’s Board Indonesian Labor Union Federation (DPP F.ISBI), on Wednesday (23/1) at the Panel Court Room of the Constitutional Court. The Petitioners pleaded the Justice Board to assess Article 29, Article 55 Paragraph (1), and Article 59 Paragraph (1) Act on Bankruptcy which was considered against the 1945 Constitution.

“The 1945 Constitution has provided a clear and strict platform, that every citizen constitutionally deserves a job with fair and proper reward. Unfortunately, the guaranteed rights of the labors can be threatened by the existence of regulation on creditor title that should be prioritised in the allotment of bankrupt treasures”, Muhammad Hafidz said as he explained his legal standing of the petition.

Especially concerning Article 29 Act on Bankruptcy, Hafidz continued that the article was considered to have violated Article 28D Paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. Hafidz considered the regulation on that Article had a potential to obstruct the labors to get a fair law certainty, with the regulation that annulled chrages to get a credit fulfillment of the bankruptcy treasures of the ongoing trial. Whereas regarding the Article 55 Paragraph (1) and Article 59 Paragraph (1), both Articles were considered by the Petitioners to have violated Article 28D Paragraph (2) the 1945 Constitution because they did not provide any chances for the labors to assess their rights to curator when the bankruptcy happened. Hafidz also added that, the implicit message in both Articles did not go along with the message in Article 95 Paragraph (4) Act No.13 Year 2003 on Workforce.

“The mainpoints of the Article 95 Paragraph (4) Act on Workforce is to protect the rights of the workers during or at the end of the working relationship due to bankruptcy. On that regulation, the labors and workers are in the first line when the bankruptcy happens, therefore the constitutional message can be proceeded”, continued Hafidz.

Because of those various backgrounds then Hafidz and his partners in DPP F.ISBI pleaded the Constitutional Court to grant their request, that is to declare that the material contained in Article 29, Article 55 Paragraph (1), and Article 59 Paragraph (1) Act No.37 Year 2004 did not have a binding law power.

Responding to the petition, the Justice Panel Board with A. Mukthie Fadjar as the chairman advised the Petitioners to complete the paperwork covering the explanation on the Constitutional Court’s authorities related to the registration of the Petition to be put on trial in the Constitutional Court. Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Mukthie also advised the Petitioners to clarify the argumentation on their legal standing as well as the participant’s constitutional rights that had been violated by the existence of the  Act on Bankruptcy. The Constitutional Justice Mukthie Fadjar also advised the Petitioners to present their Legal Counsel in order to help them in the next trials and to complete their evidences. “You can ask for help from a nonprofit legal aid institution, such as YLBHI (Indonesian Legal Aid Institution Foundation),” He advised. [Kencana Suluh Hikmah/Yogi Djatnika]