---

Missiniaki Tomi and Mayandri Suzarman as the attorneys of the Petitioner reading out the principal points of the petition in the preliminary hearing of Law No. 13/2003 on Manpower on Monday (8/1) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

The Constitutional Court (MK) held a preliminary hearing of Law No. 13/2003 on Manpoweron Monday (8/1). The case No. 100/PUU-XV/2017 was filed by Desy Puspita Sari, a contract employee of Bank Rakyat Indonesia (BRI) in Bukit Tinggi, West Sumatera. 

The Petitioner petitioned the following articles. 

Article 6 of the Manpower Law

“Every worker/laborer has the right to receive equal treatment without discrimination from their employer.”

Article 59 paragraph (7) of the Manpower Law 

“Any work agreement for a specified period of time that does not fulfill the requirements referred to under subsection (1), subsection (2), subsection (4), subsection (5) and subsection (6) shall, by law, become a work agreement for an unspecified period of time.”

Article 86 paragraph (1) of the Manpower Law 

“Every worker/laborer has the right to receive: a. Occupational safety and health protection; b. Protection against immorality and indecency; c. Treatment that shows respect to human dignity and religious values.”

The Petitioner argues that the a quo petition emphasizes the prevailing dual standards between workers with employment agreement made for unspecified period of time (PKWTT) "from the beginning" and PKWTT "by law." 

"The possibility of interpretations of the phrase ‘by law’ may lead to chaos and confusion. There is even an effort to pit laborers against employers with provocation that every PKWT [(employment agreement made for a specified period of time)] worker who does regular work is still recognized as PKWTT by law. That leads to disharmony in industrial relations," said Missiniaki Tomi, one of the Petitioner’s attorneys. 

In addition, according to the Petitioner, the a quo provisions have caused losses for the Petitioner, especially in relation to career level and other normative rights that should be received as a PKWTT employee since the beginning. Based on these reasons, the Petitioner requested that the Constitutional Court declare the articles being reviewed to have no legal force and be contradictory to the 1945 Constitution.

Concrete Case

Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna observed that the petition is a concrete case. "In your written petition as well as in your description, it is a concrete case. However, we are here for you to prove there is a conflict between the norms of the law and the 1945 Constitution, and you want them be revoked?" Justice Palguna said. 

Furthermore, Justice Palguna considered the Petitioner not adequately describe and explain the details of her legal standing. "The legal standing contains your explanation as to why the norms of the law you are petitioning are considered detrimental to your constitutional rights. Your petition has not proven there is any conflict between the norms of the law and the Constitution," he explained. 

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo as Chairman of the Panel advised the Petitioner to give a clear argument of her petition. "Provide an argument that it has led to uncertainty, chaos, and multiple interpretations as a norm. Do not let only one-two concrete cases and unfair treatment keep you from taking it to the public court to seek justice," he said. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---