Principal Petitioner Abdul Hakim in the ruling hearing of the judicial review of the Manpower Law, Wednesday (12/12) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The Constitutional Court declared the petition of the judicial review of Law No. 13/2003 on Manpower, which was filed by Abdul Hakim, rejected. The ruling was pronounced by Chief Justice Anwar Usman in the judicial review hearing of case No. 72/PUU-XVI/2018 in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court, Wednesday (12/12). Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams read out the considerations that the norm reviewed and the basis for review in the petition were the same as that of case No. 100/PUU-XV/2017 decided on February 21, 2018.

The Petitioner had argued on Article 59 paragraph (7) of the Manpower Law against Article 28D paragraphs (1) and (2) of the 1945 Constitution. The Court had declared the article constitutional, so according to Article 60 of the Constitutional Court Law, such petition could not be petitioned for judicial review because the norm in the 1945 Constitution that the judicial review was based on had been examined by the Court in a previous decision. “Therefore, the petition for judicial review of the a quo norm cannot be filed again,” said Justice Wahiduddin before the hearing, which the principal petitioner—an employee of PT Internusa Food—attended.

The Petitioners had previously argued that with the enactment of the a quo article, since his first day of work on March 6, 2012, he was bound by PT Internusa Food with a work agreement for a specified period, which has been extended 11 times. He had attempted to change its status to one for an unspecified period of time through the Industrial Relations Court Decision of the Central Jakarta District Court No. 6/Pdt.Sus-PHI/2018/PN.Jkt.Pst dated July 12, 2018 (IRC Decision). However, the IRC Decision resulted in PT Internusa Food terminating the employment (PHK) of the Petitioner unilaterally since July 28, 2017 with the reason that the PKWT agreement had expired. He further explained that on the transition from the initial employment from PKWT to PKWTT, the Supreme Court had eliminated the worker’s rights in the form of wages during the termination process as established by the IRC.

Therefore, the Petitioner requested that the Constitutional Justices revoke Article 59 paragraph (7) of the Manpower Law. In addition, he requested that the a quo article be declared conditionally unconstitutional if it was interpreted to abolish the right of the worker to wages during the termination process which was originally based on a work agreement for a specified period into one for an unspecified period. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)