---

Applicants’ Attorney Ahmad Fauzi delivered petition revision in the session of Industrial Relations Dispute Settlement Act, on Wednesday (27/7) in Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ganie

 

 

 

Industrial relations ad-hoc justices Mustofa and Sahala Aritonang revised petition concerning Industrial Relations Dispute Settlement Act (UU PPHI). Their attorney Ahmad Fauzi delivered revised petition on Wednesday (27/7), in Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building.

Fauzi delivered that his clients has revised petition in accordance with Justice Panel inputs. The revision among others was petition demand that demands the Court to declare Article 67 (2) Act of Industrial Relations Dispute Settlement conditionally unconstitutional. In other words, the Applicants requested 5 years office term for ad-hoc justice in Industrial Relations Court and reappointment for one consecutive term.

“Request the Court to declare Article 67 (2) Act No. 2 Year 2004 of Industrial Relations Dispute Settlement that stated ‘The term of ad hoc justice is 5 years term and can be reappointed for one consecutive term’ applied conditionally constitutional if it changed into ‘The term of ad hoc justice is 5 years term and can be reappointed for every five years by Supreme Court Chief Justice until the justice reached retirement age; 62 years for ad hoc justice in district court and 67 years for ad hoc justice in the Supreme Court’,” said Fauzi in front of the session led by Constitutional Justice Manahan MP Sitompul.

After hearing petition revision, Constitutional Justice Manahan reminded the Applicants to complete evidence, including the theory of ad hoc justice. Manahan also validated 9 items of evidence filed by the Applicants.

“Petition revision has been delivered and we (Justice Panel, ed.) figure out that the Applicants have revised it in accordance with our inputs. Thus, we receive your petition revision. The next proceeding is the petition will be delivered to Justice’s Consultative Meeting (RPH, ed.),” said Manahan accompanied by Constitutional Justice Patrialis Akbar and Suhartoyo.

Petition Points

As known, the Applicants challenged Article 67 (2) Act of Industrial Relations Dispute Settlement. They argued that the Article had discriminated ad hoc justice in Industrial Relations Court. The Article stated that the term of ad hoc justice is 5 years term and can be reappointed for one consecutive year. They argued that such periodization isn’t regulated for justices in the Supreme Court surroundings.

Moreover, the Applicants considered that the provision causes several problems which related to case proceedings. They worried that the provision makes them unable to complete industrial relations cases in which they supposed to provide fair protection for both workers and government.

The Applicants considered that office term limitation causes career uncertainty, while the recruitment of industrial relations ad-hoc justice is very selective and involves president, the Supreme Court, and the Judicial Commission. They wanted that industrial relations ad-hoc justices may serve in their post until retirement age. Thus, they requested the Court to declare Article 67 (2) Act of Industrial Relations Dispute Settlement conditionally constitutional. (Yusti Nurul Agustin/lul/Prasetyo Adi N)

---