Judicial review on constitutionality of Act No. 13 of 2003 concerning Manpower tipped rejection. "Rejecting the petition in its entirety," said Moh. Mahfud MD led trial verdict pronunciation case Number 61/PUU-VIII/2010, Monday (14/11/2011) at the Plenary Session of the House chamber of the Constitutional Court (MK).

Judicial hearing of Act on Manpower was filed by M. Komarudin, Chairman of the General Federation of Trade Unions Association of Indonesia (FISBI), General Secretary Muhammad Hafidz (FISBI). The material reviewed Act on manpower legislation, namely Article 1 paragraph 22, Article 88 paragraph (3) letter a, Article 90 paragraph (2), Article 160 paragraph (3), paragraph (6), Article 162 paragraph (1), and Article 171.

Petitioner argues that the enactment of Article 1 number 22 resulted in normative rights of workers / laborers can be disputed to the Industrial Relations Court through bipartite and mediation process, so that workers / laborers in the fight for their rights must take judicial process that takes time not for a moment. In addition, these provisions have been mistaken in determining disputes between trade unions / labor unions as an industrial dispute. According to the Court, the length of the process that must be passed is not solely the fault of the employer but also depends heavily on both sides. This is according to the Court is not a reason that causes unconstitutionality tested norms, but rather a matter of application of the law.

Regarding the minimum wage in Article 88 paragraph (4) of Act 13/2003, in principle the Court, the minimum wage has been accommodated in Article 88 paragraph (4), although this need to be considered in determining the productivity and economic growth becomes an important element for the fulfillment of the minimum wage question. Furthermore, Article 90 paragraph (2) that according to the Petitioner has provided no loopholes for employers to comply with the law. According to the Court, the power of capital and production employers can not be generalized. For companies with strong capital and modern technology and qualified management, suspension of the minimum wage is not fair. Conversely for companies with small capital and small profit margins, the company still needs legal protection, because it has not been able to provide the minimum wage.

Regarding the provisions of Article 160 paragraph (3) and paragraph (6) according to the Court, criminal proceedings could last for years it does not guarantee legal certainty (justice delayed justice denied), both for the workers / laborers and employers themselves. Next is the phrase "within a period of 1 (one) year from the date of termination of employment" within the provisions of Article 171. Court judge, limit maximum period of one year is a period of time proportional to balance the interests of employers and workers / laborers and not contradictory to Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. Limitation is so important even for the sake of legal certainty so that problems do not just drag on and can be completed within a period not too long. (Rosihin Nur Ana / mh/Yazid.tr)