The Petitioner\'s attorney, Mayandri Suzarman, delivering the principal points of the petition for judicial review of the Manpower Law on Monday (22/1) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The judicial review hearing of Law No. 13/2003 on Manpower was held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Monday (22/1) afternoon. The Petitioner\'s attorney, Mayandri Suzarman, submitted a number of revisions to the Panel of Justices led by Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo. 

In the hearing, the Petitioner explained that she had improved the petition in accordance with the Panel\'s advice. The Petitioner made several revisions on the legal standing. "We changed several things yesterday in accordance with the direction of the Panel of Justices. The first, which is the basis and legal standing of the Petitioner as a party with an interest in the a quo petition, is based on Article 51 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Law," Mayandri Suzarman explained. 

Article 51 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Law reads, “An appellant is a party who claims that his/her/its constitutional rights and/or competency are injured by the enactment of a law. Such party constitutes: a. A person of Indonesian nationality; b. A community group espousing customary law in existence and in conformity with development in society within the principles of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia as prescribed by law; c. A public or a private legal entity; or d. A state institution.”

"The Petitioner is an individual Indonesian citizen, a productive worker who has worked within a work agreement for a specified period of time in PT Bank Rakyat Indonesia Persero Bukit Tinggi Branch as a teller. Secondly, the elucidation to Article 51 of the Constitutional Court Law, states that constitutional rights is the rights regulated in the 1945 Constitution," Mayandri said. 

Mayandri explained that the Petitioner considers that with the enactment of the norm in the provision “by law” in Article 59 paragraph (7) on moral and ethical phrase, Article 86 paragraph (1) letter b on the phrase “treatment that shows respect to human dignity and religious values,” Article 86 paragraph (1) letter c of the Manpower Law have not been able to provide legal guarantees for the Petitioner to obtain recognition of employment status by the employer. "This has resulted in loss of protection and legal certainty that constitutes the Petitioner\'s constitutional rights," Mayandri said. 

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 Article 6 of the Manpower Law that reads, “Every worker/laborer has the right to receive equal treatment without discrimination from their employer.” She also petitioned Article 59 paragraph (7) that reads, “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.”

In addition, the Petitioner reviews Article 86 paragraph (1) of the Manpower Law  that reads, “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." She thinks that 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. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)