---

David M. Agung Aruan, who represented the Petitioners, explaining the petition in the judicial review of Law Number 13 of 2003 on Manpower, Wednesday (19/9) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

PT Manito World employees once again filed a judicial review on the provision of Termination of Employment (PHK) for workers/laborers who have prolonged illness as stipulated in Article 172 of Law Number 13 of 2003 on Manpower. The registered case No. 77/PUU-XVI/2018 was filed by Banua Sanjaya Hasibuan, David M. Agung Aruan, and Achmad Kurnia as employees at PT Manito World. 

David M. Agung Aruan who represented the Petitioners explained that they objected to the enactment of Article 172 of the Manpower Law which 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 the petition, the Petitioners 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.

"If you have experienced an incident where you must provide severance pay without an official certificate or medical records from the hospital, in this case, we request that the article be examined so that it can be revised, so that there are provisions regarding medical records or official information from the hospital regarding the prolonged illness," Agung explained before a panel of justices led by Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo. 

Therefore, the Petitioners requested that the Constitutional Court declare Article 172 of Law No. 13/2003 on Manpower be revised or added with a medical records prerequisite, which would read, “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 provide medical records or official statement from hospital to 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).”

Already Decided 

Responding to the petition, Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna stated that the Court had decided on the same petition filed by the same Petitioners in the Constitutional Court Decision Number 42/PUU-XVI/2018. Justice Palguna said that the Petitioners had repeated the same mistake on their constitutional standing and loss because the previous decision was not accepted by the Constitutional Court. 

"This is the problem: You repeat the same mistake. Has your lawyer been informed or that the decision on this case was previously [rejected]? That is what I want to explain now. Who actually is the Petitioners here? Is this a legal entity or employees? They’re two different things because surely the constitutional rights are different, and even contradictory between employees and company," he explained. 

The same thing was conveyed by Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra who requested that the Petitioners improve their legal standing as a legal entity or individuals. He also suggested that they improve the reference used to test the constitutionality of Article 172 of the Manpower Law. 

"If you argue on Article 172 of Law Number 13 on Manpower, then it is reviewed against Article 28D paragraph (2) in the 1945 Constitution, it must be clear why the enactment of Article 172 contradicts the 1945 Constitution which was used as reference. If there is no visible connection between the enactment of Article 172 of the Manpower Law and the article are used as reference, [your petition will be obscure]," said Saldi. (Lulu Anjarsari/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---