Chairperson of the Forum for BNI Pensioners Martinus Nuroso explaining petition revision in the judicial review hearing of the Manpower Law, Tuesday (18/9) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

The Constitutional Court held the second judicial review hearing of Law No. 13/2003 on Manpower on Tuesday (18/9) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. In the petition revision hearing, Chairperson of the Forum for BNI Pensioners Martinus Nuroso submitted a revision of the norm being reviewed, previously the Elucidation to Article 167 paragraph (3) to Article 167 paragraph (3). The revision was made after he studied the principles of formulating laws.

"The principles in making laws must be clear, fair, and efficient. In [my] opinion, this article in fact has not fulfilled lawmaking requirements so it is unclear and has multiple interpretations. Certain parties then used it to make their own version of severance calculation formula, which is contrary to the Elucidation of Article 167 paragraph (3)," Martinus explained the petition No. 68/PUU-XVI/2018. 

Furthermore, Martinus explained that the elucidation to the a quo article was correct because it contained three variables of the pension program, namely severance pay, pension money whose premiums/contributions paid by the employer, and the premiums/contributions paid by employers and workers (shared). 

In addition, during the revision hearing presided over by Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams accompanied by Constitutional Justices Saldi Isra and Enny Nurbaningsih, Martinus also affirmed his legal standing as an individual citizen and chairperson of the organization through the statute that stated that as chairperson he could represent the organization, both inside and outside the court. 

The Petitioner had previously claimed that Article 167 paragraph (3) of the Manpower Law is contrary to the norms of the body that reads, "calculated with the severance pay shall be the pension whose contributions/premiums have been paid by the entrepreneur." According to him, the loss suffered by the Petitioner began in 2013, when the severance pay for workers entering retirement was underpaid. The Petitioner had held meetings with various parties to fight for their rights, including filing a lawsuit with the Industrial Relations Court. However, the Industrial Relations Court Decree No. 68/PHI.G/2014/PN.JK.PST dated September 11, 2014 rejected the Petitioner\'s claim on the grounds that severance pay had been regulated in a quo article. The judges at the hearing assessed that the existing formulation and calculation results had been in accordance with the existing laws and regulations. In conclusion, there was no evidence that irregularities have resulted in underpayments so there is no obligation for the Defendant to pay the severance pay as demanded by the Plaintiffs.

Therefore, the Petitioner requested that the Constitutional Justices declare that the Manpower Law, especially Article 167 paragraph (3) and its elucidation, would lead to uncertainty contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and not have binding legal force. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)