---

Petitioners’ attorney, Eep Ependi, after attending preliminary hearing of the judicial review of Manpower Law on Thursday (25/1) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

A number of employees of several private companies in East Jakarta and Bekasi review Article 59 paragraph (1) of Law No. 13/2003 on Manpower on Thursday (25/1). Abdul Hakim, Romi Andriyan Hutagaol, Budi Oktariyan, Mardani, Tarsan, and Supriyanto are individual Petitioners who filed the case No. 6/PUU-XVI/2018. Through attorney Eep Ependi, they petitioned the a quo article that they claim detrimental to their constitutional rights.

Elucidation to Article 59 paragraph (1) reads, "The work agreement as referred to under this subsection shall be registered with the government agency responsible for manpower affairs."

In the preliminary hearing led by Constitutional Justice Aswanto accompanied by Constitutional Justices Suhartoyo and Wahiduddin Adams in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court, Eep asserted that the a quo article harmed the Petitioners with legal uncertainty about the employment agreement made for a specified period of time (PKWT) in his company. Eep explains that the a quo article only contains the terms of registering the employment contract to the Department of Manpower, so it raised questions.

"Do [the Petitioners’ employers] voluntarily register their employment contracts? Is the contracts submitted for registration without first its compliance to the Manpower Act being checked?" explained Eep, who was accompanied by Abdul Hakim, one of the Petitioners.

Eep describes that in practice, the registration of the PKWT is not mandatory in the a quo law and is not carried out labor inspectors at the agency responsible for manpower affairs. "With such action, it has created doubt in the practice because [it is unclear whether] the content of the PKWT is in accordance with existing regulations or not," Eep explained.

With regard to the guarantee of protection and legal certainty, Eep stated that the Constitutional Court through Decision No. 7/PUU-XII/2014 on November 4, 2015 has expressly declared who is authorized to determine whether or not employment contract is valid. "Therefore, registration of employment contract becomes the authority of the labor inspector who first examines the fulfillment of the terms of employment contract, both subjectively and objectively," said Eep.

Justices’ Advice

Constitutional Court Justice Wahiduddin requested that the Petitioners clarify the constitutional rights impairment they suffered. "It is [too] simple, only claiming the a quo article is contradictory and quoting the Court\'s decision, but the constitutional impairment related to the norms being reviewed still needs detailed and concrete explanation," Justice Wahiduddin explained.

Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo emphasized the need to include evidence such as employment contract number, even letter of dismissal [and] things experienced by the Petitioners in their companies, considering the workplaces of the Petitioners vary. "Although the Constitutional Court does not hear concrete cases, [the evidence] can [prove] the constitutional impairment resulting from the enactment of the provisions of this article," explained Justice Suhartoyo.

At the end of the hearing, Constitutional Justice Aswanto conveyed that the Petitioners were given time until February 7, 2018 at 10.00 a.m. to submit their revisions to the Court\'s Registrar. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---