Krisnadwipayana University Lecturer Basani Situmorang as expert for the Government delivering his expertise in the judicial review hearing of the Manpower Law, Wednesday (12/12) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The Constitutional Court once again held a judicial review hearing of provision on termination of employment (PHK) as stipulated in Article 172 of Law No. 13 of 2003 on Manpower on Wednseday (12/12). In the hearing of case No. 77/PUU-XVI/2018, Krisnadwipayana University Lecturer Basani Situmorang was present as expert for the Government. He stressed that the regulation in fact provide protection for the welfare of the employees.

Banua Sanjaya Hasibuan, David M. Agung Aruan, and Achmad Kurnia as employees at PT Manito World had once again filed a judicial review of Article 172 of the Manpower Law. 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.

Basani said that the provision of Article 172 of the Manpower Law was not standalone, but was connected to Article 153 paragraph (1) of the Manpower Law. He added that the provision of Article 172 of the Manpower Law did not regulate doctor certificate because prolonged illness was proven by doctor certificate as stipulated in Article 153 paragraph (1) of the Manpower Law. It similarly applies to permanent disability, illness due to work accident, or illness due because it is related to doctor certificate. “Therefore, Article 172 is about employment termination by the employee’s or worker’s request,” he elaborated.

Meanwhile, Basani stated, Article 93 paragraph (1) of the Manpower Law regulates that salary is unpaid if the worker does not perform work. This provision is a principle that applies to all workers/laborers, except if the worker/laborer concerned cannot do the work for reasons out of their control. Finally, he said that Article 93 paragraph (2) letter a regulates that the employer has the obligation to pay the salary if the worker/laborer is taken ill that they cannot perform work.

"On workers/laborers taken ill, the provision of Article 93 paragraph (3) determines the wages paid to the workers/laborers, that is, 100% for the first 4 months, 75% for the second month, 50% for the third 4 months, and for the following month 25% of the previous wage. Termination of employment is carried out by the employer," he said in a session chaired by Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Anwar Usman. (Arif Satriantoro/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)