Formulation of expiration for period of 2 (two) years is basically a requirement of justice and the rule of law and is guaranteed Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. Period of 2 years is enough time for workers / laborers to demand payment of their rights. But if the workers / laborers do not take the time, it means the worker / laborer is releasing its own right. "It is unfair to be charged to employers and neither fair nor a businessman burdened with obligations without any time limit, it will burden the employers of all time. This will certainly lead to unjust laws and the rule of certainty. "

Chairman of the Executive Board of the Indonesian Employers Association (APINDO) Sofjan Wanandi said this when a trial testing the Related Parties in Article 96 of Law No. 13 of 2003 on Manpower (Labor Law) at the Constitutional Court (MK), Monday (28/1 / 2013). Session times for the four cases registered on October 3, 2012 by the Registrar of the Court is scheduled to hear 100/PUU-X/2012 number APINDO information.

Strengthening the statement above, Sofjan Wanandi explained seven reasons (arguments). First, the rights and obligations of employers and workers / laborers have no legal certainty. Second, it was to obtain legal certainty necessary to establish the rights and obligations arising from the employment relationship. Third, the provisions of Article 96 of the Act on Labor were to provide legal certainty for any decision or determination, and until when the decision or determination can be challenged in court. Fourth, providing the opportunity for workers / laborers to refuse or make claims against the perceived unfair treatment in the event of layoffs as stipulated by Article 96 of the Labor Law is to ensure that the fundamental rights of workers / laborers at work are protected by the state. Fifth, the workers / laborers who are not making claims beyond the time allowed by law, then by itself be deemed to have waived his right, it is a reasonable for legal certainty for the parties. Sixth, with regard to payment of wages and other rights in the employment relationship, always set the terms expire. Seventh, Article 96 of the Labor Law is not contrary to Article 28D paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution.

Based on these arguments, APINDO requested that the Court rejected the test of Article 96 of the Labor Law. Then ask the Court declared Article 96 of the labor law is not contrary to Article 28D paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. "Based on the foregoing, the Constitutional Court could issue a decision, it is certainly our opinion rather than employers, to deny the Applicant testing entirely, or petition for judicial review petition cannot be accepted," pleaded Sofjan.

Achmad Sodiki (panel chairman), Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi, M. Akil Mochtar, Hamdan Zoelva, Maria Farida Indrati, Muhammad Alim, and Anwar Usman, said the judicial proceedings of the Manpower Act is deemed sufficient. Panel asked the parties to the Petitioner, the Government, the Parliament, in order to make inferences and submitted directly to the Registrar of the Court no later than Monday, February 4, 2013 at 16:00 pm. "Well, in that case, the entire proceedings of the Case Number 100/PUU-X/2012 is sufficient," said Plenary Chair Achmad Sodiki. 

The review of Article 96 was filed by Marten Boiliu. Marten is a unit clerk Safety (Security) at its State Owned Enterprises (SOEs) through the company’s security service, namely PT Sandy Putra Makmur (PT SPM). Marten had Termination (termination) when PT SPM is no longer a working relationship with the state where he was stationed. Marten lose the right to severance pay, cash awards, and compensation for not sue for those rights within two years. Article 96 of the Act on Labor states, "The demands payment of wages of workers / laborers and all payments arising from the employment relationship to it after the expiry period of 2 (two) years from the onset of the right."

According to Marten, is contrary to the provisions of Article 28D paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution which states, "Everyone has the right to work and receive remuneration and equal treatment in employment and decent." (Nur Rosihin Ana)