---

One of the Applicant’s Attorneys Iskandar Zulkarnaen delivered petition points in preliminary session of Manpower Act, on Tuesday (23/02) in Panel Session Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ganie

 

 

 

The Constitutional Court held preliminary session of Act Number 13 Year 2003 of Manpower, on Tuesday (23/2) in Panel Session Room, the Constitutional Court Building. A number of labors on behalf of the Untitled Labors Alliance (Aliansi Buruh Tanpa Nama) filed petition concerning the Act, which registered in Case No. 8/PUU-XIV/2016.

Representing by Applicant’s Attorney Iskandar Zulkarnaen, the Applicants considered they entitled to decent rewards and living, as stipulated in Article 28D (2) the 1945 Constitution. The Applicant argued remuneration policies should base on the needs of decent living (KHL) which corresponding with productivity and economy growth.

“However, the government recently considers that there is no standard formula of minimum wage. Instead, the government implements Government Regulation No. 78 Year 2015 as basis,” said him in the session led by Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo.

He explained that the regulation was the interpretation of Article 88 (4) Act of Manpower which stated “The Government determines minimum wage as referred in paragraph (3) letter a that based on the needs of decent living under consideration on productivity and economy growth”. The Applicant argued the provision still had holes that allow different interpretations by the government, workers union, and employers association. Therefore, the government needed to regulate in detail, which was government regulation.

“Whereas there is no obligation to use the needs of decent living value as minimum wage component in the Article referred. Therefore, we request the Court to annul the Article because it contrary to the 1945 Constitution,” he explained.

Responding the petition, Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo said the Applicants were worried excessively. According to him, living needs accumulation, as well as productivity and economy growth were already covered in prevailing regulation. “However, labors prioritize financial value of wage earned,” he explained.

Suhartoyo said that the Applicants should struggle in the implementation of Act norm. He argued that labor’s wage would still low although the Act norm changed, because negotiation between labors with employers played important role in it. (Arief Satriantoro/lul/Prasetyo Adi N)

---