Nurkholis Hidayat as legal counsel of the Petitioners delivering statement for the petition revision for judicial review of the Manpower Law, Tuesday (26/6) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The follow-up hearing of Law No. 13/2003 on Manpower (Manpower Law) was held once again by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Tuesday (26/6) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. In the session, Nurkholis Hidayat as legal counsel stated that the Petitioners had revised the petitum of the petition. 

Furthermore, Nurkholis also conveyed the revision of the petition with emphasis on strengthening the argument in relation to the Petitioners’ constitutional impairment which was later affirmed in the petitum. "The amended petitum is point 2 that stated that Article 167 paragraph (3) along the phrase ‘is calculated with’ is contradictory to Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution or is declared conditional," Nurkholis explained in the session presided over by Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat in the presence of Constitutional Justices Suhartoyo and I Dewa Gede Palguna. 

In 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 a quo article has led to multiple interpretations. 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 retirees owing the company. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)