Act 13/2003 concerning Manpower sued back to the Constitutional Court on Thursday (28/11). This time the Indonesian Employers Association (APINDO) listed as the applicant is the case with No. 96/PUU-XI/2013.

In his petition, Petitioner, represented by its legal counsel , Ibrahim Sumantri explain Applicant felt their constitutional rights violated by the enactment of Article 59 paragraph ( 7 ) , Article 65 paragraph ( 8 ) and Article 66 paragraph ( 4 ) Labor Law . Article 59 paragraph ( 7 ) states " A work agreement for a specified time that does not comply with the provisions referred to in paragraph ( 1 ) , paragraph ( 2 ) , paragraph ( 4 ) , subsection ( 5 ) , and ( 6 ) , then by law becomes work agreement for an unspecified time " . Meanwhile , Article 65 paragraph ( 8 ) states " In terms of the provisions referred to in paragraph ( 2 ) , and paragraph ( 3 ) , is not fulfilled, the legal employment status of workers / laborers with corporate chartering receiver -turned- labor relations workers / workers with employer companies " . While Article 66 paragraph ( 4 ) states " In terms of the provisions referred to in paragraph ( 1 ) , paragraph ( 2 ) letter a , b , and d , and paragraph ( 3 ) is not fulfilled, the legal status of the employment relationship between the worker / labor and services company workers / laborers turning to the working relationship between the worker / laborer and the employer " .

According to Ibrahim, in the opinion of the Court in Case Number 27/PUUIX/2011 Decision states that a violation of Article 59 is not an issue of constitutionality but only implementation issues, but in reality the issue of the implementation of Article 59 paragraph (7) of the Act quo becomes an issue of constitutionality because the enforcement of norms do not in accordance with the applicable legal mechanisms. "Labor Law was not given a definitive interpretation by the legislators so that the application of Article 59 paragraph ( 7 ) of the Constitution open to interpretation quo government, employers , workers / laborers," he explained.

Whereas, in Article 65 paragraph (8) of the Act, it gives obscurity during implementation due to different interpretations. "Among others, the type of work that can be submitted through chartering companies and institutions which are authorized to determine whether or not the norm met,” he explained.

Meanwhile, the implementation of Article 66 paragraph ( 4 ) of the Act are multiple interpretations of the field of industrial relations stakeholders in Indonesia , which is related to the types of jobs that can be submitted through the contracting company , which agency has the authority to determine whether or not the norm met quo , and the norm of law enforcement mechanisms, if not met the requirements relating to the type of work that is submitted through the employment service Provider Company ( PPJTK ) and legal requirements such PPJTK legal entity . “For this reason, the Applicant requested that the judges cancel the third chapter," he said.

Panel of judges, led by Judge Patrialis Akbar accompanied by Arief Hidayat and Anwar Usman suggest improvements to the applicant. Patrialis explained that the applicant is questioned on the issue of implementation and it is not the authority of the Court. "In the petition the applicant has not seen specific things. Applicant talk more implementations the norm because it is not the authority of the Court," he explained. (Lulu Anjarsari / mh )