---

M. Hafidz as Relevant Party giving statement in the judicial review hearing of Law No. 13/2003 on Manpower, Wednesday (21/11) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

Judicial review of Law No. 13/2003 on Manpower was held once again by the Constitutional Court, Wednesday (21/11). M. Hafidz as Relevant Party asserted that the case was not a constitutionality issue.

Hafidz assessed that the Petitioners\' petition on the regulation of employment termination was a concrete case experienced by the Petitioners because the workers had filed an employment termination claim to the Bandung IA Class Industrial Relations Court in case No. 134/PDT.SUS-PHI/2017/PN.BDG. According to the Petitioners, the workers could not produce medical records or official information of illness from the hospital.

"So, according to the Relevant Party, [it is] not a matter of constitutionality of norm, but implementation of norm because, the workers had correctly apply Article 172 of the Manpower Law because the court and the judge in deciding on a dispute must hold on to facts and evidence, as long as it is reasonable for workers to apply for employment termination," he explained in a session led by Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Anwar Usman.

In addition, Hafidz added that with a reasonable reasoning, if the workers are unable to prove the reason for filing a termination request, it can be ascertained that the claim or petition submitted by the workers will be rejected by the court. In addition, employers do not have any obligations, whether they provide twice amount of severance pay, twice amount of work period award pay, or one-time compensation, [as stipulated by] the provision of Article 156 paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) of the Manpower Law.

"Therefore, the Relevant Party considered in the arguments of the Petitioners\' petition to have no reason that is sufficient and justifiable by law. Therefore, Article 172 of the Manpower Law must be declared not contradicting Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution," he asserted as director of PT Fidzkarana Cipta Media.

Witness

Meanwhile, Petitioner\'s witness Achmad Kurnia Syamsudin provided information regarding Nani Marlina, an employee who had an accident and for 3 months gave a written statement from the physician to the company. However, since the fourth month to one year, there is no statement to declare that Nani Marlina had been ill.

"Meanwhile, [Miss] Nani Marlina in the fourth month onward still had [right to salary] and [...] still received her salary every month. In reality in the field every month, we observed that she was healthy and able to work," he said, representing PT Manito World. 

The company, Achmad added, had conducted bipartite or tripartite [measures] through trade unions and government agency. The Sukabumi Manpower Office and representative of the company had recommended that Nani Marlina be rehired.

"However, [Nani Marlina objected to this suggestion], then filed [a suit] to the industrial relations court. This [must be considered] because the IRC decision was different from that of the tripartite leadership," he explained.

PT Manito World employees had 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 No. 13/2003 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. 

The Petitioners objected to Article 172 of the Manpower Law deemed to have were potentially harmed their constitutional rights, 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 proof of by medical records. (Arif Satriantoro/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---