Panel preliminary hearing of judicial review of Manpower Law, on Thursday (7/6) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

A number of Petitioners consisting of national banks retirees filed a judicial review of Law No. 13/2003 on Manpower against the 1945 Constitution on Thursday (7/6) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. In the preliminary hearing of case No. 46/PUU-XVI/2018, the Petitioners Indrayana, Augustinus Kabul Sutrisno, Achmad Syafi\'i, Yulias Andrie Yatmo, and Santen Purba claimed that Article 167 paragraph (3) especially the phrase "is calculated with" in the Manpower Law is discriminatory, problematic, and deprives workers\' rights. 

The Petitioners, represented by Nurkholis Hidayat, explained about Article 167 paragraph (3) of the Manpower Law that reads "If the employer has included the worker/laborer whose contributions/premiums paid by the employer and the worker/laborer, then that which is calculated with the severance pay shall be the pension whose contributions/premiums have been paid by the employer" has impaired their constitutional rights in terms of severance pay. 

In practice, Nurkholis explained, the a quo article has led to multi-interpretation. Banking businessmen interpret it as pension minus severance pay. As a result, workers including the Petitioners had not been paid the severance pay or the severance pay was significantly reduced that they did not get the amount that they were supposed to get, even causing the Petitioners or pensioners owing the company. 

On the contrary, the Petitioners, Nurkholis added, requested that the phrase "is calculated with" be applied as the elucidation to the article. "To that end, we request the Panel [of Justices] to provide a conditional interpretation of the a quo article because this phrase, if calculated as reducing the rights of workers including the Petitioners, is at least in contradiction with the principle of legal certainty as regulated in Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution," said Nurkholis before the hearing presided over by Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat as well as Constitutional Justices Suhartoyo and I Dewa Gede Palguna.

Substance of Norm

Responding to the petition, Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo requested that the Petitioners provide an explanation and comparison to the substance of the norm being challenged by including evidence of the banking parties who also apply the a quo article. "Later if there are other parties who also show the issue of the norm, [the reason] BNI and BRI applied the a quo norm should be questioned," Justice Suhartoyo explained. 

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna requested that the Petitioners elaborate more rather than just explaining the concrete cases experienced by the Petitioners on the validity of the norm. Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat requested that the Petitioners review the Decision of the Constitutional Court No. 1/PUU-XIV/2016 that review similar article. "It was once [challenged], but the case was withdrawn. This can be studied for comparative material with regard to why it was withdrawn," Justice Arief explained. 

Before concluding the hearing, Justice Arief reminded the Petitioners to submit the revision of the petition no later than Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 10:00 p.m. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)