The principal petitioner Abdul Hakim and legal counsel Eep Efendi attending the ruling hearing of the judicial review of the Manpower Law on Thursday (31/5) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

The provision of employment agreement as stipulated in the Elucidation to Article 59 paragraph (1) of Law No. 13/2003 on Manpower is in accordance with the 1945 Constitution. Such is the Decision of the Constitutional Court No. 6/PUU-XVI/2018 read by the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Anwar Usman on Thursday (31/5) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. "Rejects the petition of the Petitioners for the whole," Justice Anwar said, reading the decision on the petition filed by Abdul Hakim, Romi Andriyan Hutagaol, Budi Oktariyan, Mardani, Tarsan, and Supriyanto. 

In their petition, the Petitioners argued that Article 59 Paragraph (1) of Law No. 13/2003 along with its elucidation, which only explains employment agreement for a specified period of time (PKWT) is registered to the agency responsible for manpower affairs (Manpower Offices), have not provided fair guarantee, protection, and legal certainty which is to the Petitioners. That is because when the Petitioners applied for the job and was accepted, they were presented an employment agreement for a specified period of time by the employers. Whereas, the type and nature or activity of the work required for an employment agreement for a specified period must be a job that is completed within a certain time and may only be extended and/or renewed once. In fact, the Petitioners are not only not given a copy of the employment agreement, but the employment agreement is renewed repeatedly without guaranteed wages in accordance with the provision of the legislation, and they were not registered in compulsory health and employment social insurances. 

Constitutional Court Justice Wahidduddin Adams who read the legal considerations said that according to the Court, Article 59 paragraphs (7) and (8) of the Manpower Law is clear about the obligation to register PKWT and the legal consequences of the unrecorded PKWT. Article 59 of the Manpower Law including its Elucidation, is a sufficient basis that PKWT shall be registered and when PKWT is unregistered until the deadline determined by law, it turns into employment agreement made for unspecified period of time (PKWTT). 

In relation to the compulsory inspection by the inspectors of the manpower offices, the Constitutional Court has also decided on the matter in Decision of the Constitutional Court No. 7/PUU-XII/2014. In the decision, the Constitutional Court requires inspection by inspectors of the manpower offices to request the ratification of employee inspector. 

"Therefore, the essence of the Petitioners\' concern on the lack of assessment of the substance of PKWT by inspectors and the absence of sanctions against violations committed by employers against Article 59 paragraph (1) of Law No. 13 of 2003 has actually been answered by Decision of the Constitutional Court Number 7/PUU-XII/2014. Thus, Article 59 paragraph (1) of Law Number 13 of 2003 does not give rise to legal uncertainty as argued by the Petitioners, so the norms of the a quo law are not contradictory to Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution," Justice Wahiddudin said. (Lulu Anjarsari/Yuniar Widiastuti)