Principal Petitioner, Abdul Hakim, accompanied by attorney Eep Efendi after judicial review hearing of the Manpower Law on Wednesday (7/2) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

Material judicial review of the Elucidation to Article 59 paragraph (1) of Law No. 13/2003 on Manpower was held once again by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Wednesday (7/2) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. In the hearing, Eep Ependi as attorney of the Petitioners conveyed that they had changed the norm to review from Elucidation to Article 59 Paragraph (1) of Law No. 13/2003 on Manpower to Article 59 paragraph (1) of the Manpower Law on employment agreement made for a specified period of time (PKWT). 

In addition, Eep also mentioned that they had revised their legal standing and elaboration of constitutional rights. Eep, who was accompanied by one of the principals, Abdul Hakim, also explained that the Petitioners had provided a brief description of the development of the Manpower Law. In addition, the Petitioners also described the constitutional impairment they suffered. Employees have a weak bargaining position with the absence of obligations for employers to register PKWT. "So state intervention is required as pillar of the legal labor system by supervising the implementation of the Manpower Law, among which is checking employment agreement," he explained. 

The Petitioners, namely Abdul Hakim, Romi Andriyan Hutagaol, Budi Oktariyan, Mardani, Tarsan, and Supriyanto, are employees who individually filed a judicial review of the Manpower Law in case No. 6/PUU-XVI/2018. In their petition, the Petitioners felt disadvantaged by the legal uncertainty of PKWT agreed upon at the beginning of their work at their companies. The a quo article, according to the Petitioners, only contains the terms to register the employment contract to the Department of Manpower. 

In addition, 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. This affects the Petitioners who may at any time lose their jobs because their constitutional rights in obtaining employment are not protected. Therefore, the Petitioners are of the opinion that registration of employment contract should be the authority of labor inspectors by first examining whether or not the contract terms are fulfilled, subjectively and objectively. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)