---

Principal Applicant Muhammad Hafidz and other Applicant interviewed by the media after preliminary session on Act of Manpower and  Act of Industrial Relations Dispute Settlement, on Wednesday (30/9), at Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ganie

 

 

 

The Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi –MK) holds preliminary session on Act Number 13 Year 2003 of Manpower (Undang-Undang Ketenagakerjaan) and Act Number 2 Year 2004 of Industrial Relations Dispute Settlement (Undang-Undang Penyelesaian Perselisihan Hubungan Industrial –UU PPHI), on Wednesday afternoon (30/9) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. One of the Principal Applicant Muhammad Hafidz delivers petition points.

He explains that Article171 Act of Manpower and Article 82 Act of Industrial Relations Dispute Settlement regulate layoff lawsuit could be filed one year since the date of layoff. He assesses such time limit is potentially cannot be done because it hampered by some problems.

“What if the worker allegedly conduct criminal offense is declared guilty or not guilty in which the verdict of criminal court binding after one year since the date of layoff? Meanwhile legal remedy through the PHI as industrial relations dispute settlement institution has been closed by Article 171 Act of Manpower,” said Hafidz as one of the Applicant in Case Number 114/PUU-XIII/2015.

Hafidz further says that workers will be lost their rights which guaranteed by law, such as severance pay, employment gratuity, and compensation, if they don’t file lawsuit within one year since the date of layoff. According to the Applicant, such condition will remove workers’ legal protection.

“Time limit regulation based on Article 160 (3) and Article 162 within Article 171 Act of Manpower has removed legal protection and legal certainty,” said Hafidz.

Therefore, the Applicant requests the Court to declare Article 171 Act of Manpower and Article 82 Act of Industrial Relations Dispute Settlement contrary to the 1945 Constitution and have no legal binding.

Justices’ Input

Responding the petition, Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo advises the Applicant to revise petition demands (petitum). “You should not necessarily ask to entirely remove Articles reviewed. What if you smoothen the demands, the Articles still prevailed but it is associated with court verdict; since the verdict legally binding,” said him.

Constitutional Justice Patrialis Akbar also says similar advice. He assesses Applicant’s petition demands are need to be revised. “I think that it is better for the Applicant to wait until they receive binding verdict. For example, you could wait until first-degree verdict, because reconsideration and cessation is too long to wait in order to get your rights,” said him. (Nano Tresna Arfana/IR/Prasetyo Adi N)

 

---