---

Fatkhul Muin and Abdul Rahman Sitorus delivered testimony as Applicant’s Expert in judicial review session of Indonesian Migrant Workers Plotting and Protection (UU PPTKI), on Tuesday (26/4) in Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ifa

 

 

 

The Government hands over the responsibility of problematic migrant workers protection by Act No. 39 Year 2004 of Indonesian Migrant Workers Plotting and Protection, the Yogyakarta Migrant Workers Resources Center’s advocacy coordinator Abdul Rahman Sitorus delivered in fourth session of Case No. 12/PUU-XIV/2016, on Tuesday (26/4) in Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building.

According to Sitorus as Applicant’s Expert, such responsibility handover is handed from the Government to private sector, particularly in Article 85 (2) Act of Indonesian Migrant Workers Plotting and Protection that reviewed by the Applicants. Article 85 (2) Act a quo stated “In term of deliberation settlement has not reached an agreement, one of the parties or both parties may ask for help to relevant institution in manpower sector in regent/city, province, or government.” (“Dalam hal penyelesaian secara musyawarah tidak tercapai, maka salah satu atau kedua belah pihak dapat meminta bantuan instansi yang bertanggung jawab di bidang ketenagakerjaan di Kabupaten/Kota, Provinsi atau Pemerintah”).

“The Government cannot protect migrant workers by itself, because the Government needs to involve private institutions, in this case is private recruitment agencies (PPTKIS) and commercial insurance companies. Three representatives of domestic and one foreign private recruitment agencies have been judicially reviewed by the Constitutional Court and they are declared not compulsory (protecting migrant workers, ed.). So, the State considers unable to protect their citizen rights who live abroad, the State even hands over their responsibility to private recruitment agencies,” explained him in the session led by Constitutional Justice Maria Farida Indrati.

Migrant Workers Deliver Testimony

Migrant worker Samain delivered that the Act doesn’t provide legal certainty for migrant workers who had problems abroad. He explained that he was subjected to violence in Vietnam and the case was neglected since 2013 without any resolution.

“I experienced incident and returned back home, although I still wanted to work. My wage and insurance for 18 months wasn’t paid at all at that time. When I complained to the company, they said that I should wait for it. After three months, I complained again to the company, they said that the wage was yet reimbursed and I should wait for 6 months. The wage is unpaid until now. I confuse, where I should complaint to,” said him.

As known, the Applicant assesses Act a quo, particularly Article 85 (2), is detrimental to migrant worker’s constitutional rights. The Applicant considered the provision regulated settlement of migrant workers-private recruitment agencies dispute as a result of plotting agreement deviation at manpower institution stage, in this case was the National Labor Plotting and Protection Agency (BNP2TKI). However, settlement in BNP2TKI stage caused legal problems for the Applicant which damaged migrant worker’s legal certainty to get unfulfilled right if the settlement didn’t reach an agreement. (Lulu Anjarsari/lul/Prasetyo Adi N)

---