Attorney Andi M Asrun and the Principal Petitioners M Komarudin and M Hafidz at the hearing of judicial review of Law Number 13 Year 2003 concerning Manpower (Manpower Law), (14/10).
Jakarta, MKOnline - Law Number 13 Year 2003 concerning Manpower (Manpower Law) was filed for judicial review by the Constitutional Court, Thursday (14/10), at the Panel Court Room of the Constitutional Court. The case registered in the Court’s Registrar’s Office under Number 61/PUU-VIII/2010 was filed by M. Komaruddin and Muhammad Hafiz.
In their petition, the Petitioners represented by their attorney Andi M. Asrun argued that Article 1 paragraph (22), Article 88 paragraph (3) sub-paragraph a, Article 90 paragraph (2), Article 160 paragraphs (3) and (6) as well as Article 171 of the Manpower Law are contradictory to the 1945 Constitution, particularly Article 27 paragraph 2, Article 28 paragraph 2 and Article 28I paragraph 1. “Articles a quo had deprived the labors of legal protection,” he explained.
Meanwhile, Asrun continued, Article 88 paragraph (3) of the Manpower Law concerning policy on labors payment had undermined the rights of the labors. “On the other hand, Article 160 of the Manpower Law concerning the entrepreneur’s inability to pay labors’ wages reflects that the state gives the labors no protection. The state should raise the public’s standard of living. This is not enough by merely selecting minimum wage standard,” he explained.
As a response to the Petitioners’ petition, the Panel of Justices which consists of Constitutional Justices Achmad Sodiki as Chairperson of the Panel as well as M. Akil Mochtar and Muhammad Alim as Members of the Panel suggested that the Petitioners revise their petition. With so many Articles in the Manpower Law filed for judicial review, Akil asked the Petitioner to strengthen the argumentation and correlation of every argument. “Since there are many touchstones, they have to be correlated with the Petitioners’ constitutional impairment. Furthermore, the contradictory of norms is not present in the petition filed by the Petitioners,” he said.
Akil also requested the Petitioners to consider the consequence of the annulment of all of those Articles. “If they are annulled, this means that there would be no more regulation concerning the payment of wages or method to settle the dispute of rights in industrial relations courts. There would be a legal vacuum,” he explained.
Meanwhile, Achmad Sodiki suggested that the Petitioners strengthen the argumentation in the Petitioners’ petition. “What would be the Petitioners’ constitutional impairment? The Petitioners should sharpen the argumentation of their grounds, for that purpose, the Petitioners are given 14 days as well as to revise their petition,” he said. (Lulu Anjarsari/mh)
Thursday, October 14, 2010 | 11:44 WIB 301