Banua Sanjaya Hasibuan as Petitioner was present at the ruling hearing of judicial review of the Manpower Law, Thursday (28/6) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The petition filed by representatives of PT Manito World employees was rejected by the Constitutional Court (MK) because the Petitioners did not have legal standing. Such was the Constitutional Court Decision No. 42/PUU-XVI/2018 read by Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Anwar Usman in the presence of the other constitutional justices. "Declares the Petitioners\' petition not accepted," he said in a hearing on Thursday (6/28) morning. 

Banua Sanjaya Hasibuan who represented the Petitioners explained that they objected to the enactment of Article 172 of the Manpower Law that was deemed detrimental to their constitutional rights. Article 172 of the Manpower Law reads, "Workers/laborers who experience prolonged illnesses, experience disability due to work accidents and are unable to perform their work may, after they have been in such a condition for more than 12 (twelve) months consecutively, request employment termination upon which they shall be entitled to receive severance pay amounting to twice the amount of severance pay stipulated under Article 156 paragraph (2), reward pay for the period of employment they have worked amounting to twice the amount of such reward pay stipulated under Article 156 paragraph (3), and compensation pay amounting to one time the amount of that which is stipulated under Article 156 paragraph (4).”

In his petition, the Petitioner argued that their constitutional rights were potentially harmed by the enactment of Article 172 of the Manpower Law, because workers/laborers can apply for termination of employment and receive compensation if they experience prolonged illnesses, have a disability due to a work accident and cannot do their job exceeding 12 (twelve) months without being proof of by medical records. The absence of obligation to attach proof of medical records in this provision, according to the Petitioners, will harm the Petitioners and businessmen because they will experience substantial losses that could lead to bankruptcy because they will have to pay their obligation due to termination of employment submitted by the workers/laborers. For this reason, the Petitioners requested that the Constitutional Court declare that the articles contradictory to the 1945 Constitution and having no binding legal force insofar as the phrase "may request termination of employment" not be interpreted as "may request termination of employment and also provide medical records evidence."

Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo who read legal considerations said that the Petitioners could not prove that they could act on behalf of PT Manito World both inside and outside the court, including to be able to submit a petition to review the a quo law to the Constitutional Court. According to the Court, the evidence submitted by the Petitioners only proved Kim Nam Hyun\'s position as President Director of PT Manito World and only in the form of quotes of a Decree of the Ministry of Law and Human Rights on the ratification of the Deed of Establishment of PT Manito World. 

"There is no evidence from the Petitioners in the form of Articles of Association or bylaws or other evidence that can prove legally that Kim Nam Hyun can act on behalf of PT Manito World both inside and outside the court," he explained. 

Justice Suhartoyo explained that the evidence submitted by the Petitioners could not prove and ensure that the Petitioners had the legal standing to file the a quo petition. 

"Considering whereas even though the Court has the authority to hear the a quo petition, but because the Petitioners have no legal standing to file the a quo petition, the Court will not consider the subject matter of the petition," Justice Suhartoyo said. (Lulu Anjarsari/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)