Attorney Marthen Boiliu delivering the petition revision in the judicial review of Law Number 13 of 2013 on Manpower, Monday (7/1) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

The Constitutional Court (MK) held the revision hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 13/2003 on Manpower on Monday (7/1) afternoon. The petition registered as No. 101/PUU-XVI/2018 was submitted by Esther Fransisca Nuban, represented by Marthen Boiliu as the attorney. 

Marthen explained that the petition had been corrected in accordance with the suggestions in the previous session. "We have corrected the format of the petition according to [your] advice at the preliminary hearing. The Petitioner agrees with the Constitutional Court justices about the format of the petition," he said to the panel of justices led by Justice Enny Nurbaningsih. 

In the preliminary hearing, the panel of justices had observed that the petition had been verbose and repetitive. They advised that she summarize and clarify the petition following the format stipulated in the Regulations of the Constitutional Court (PMK) as well as arrange it so that the justices can easily understand her wishes. The judicial review is not only caused by various problems in the Petitioner\'s work, but is more concerned with the loss of the Petitioner\'s constitutional rights. The intention and objective of the Petitioner\'s petition is to affirm her constitutional loss due to the enactment of Article 156 paragraph (2) of Law Number 13 of 2003. The Petitioner feels she was treated arbitrarily by the company where she works as a result of the enactment of the a quo article.

As employee of PT. Jakarta Asih Eka Abadi (AEA), Esther reviews Article 168 paragraph (1) and Article 156 paragraph (2) of Law Number 13 of 2003. She had been called to the HR department of AEA and asked to sign the first warning letter (SP1) related to tardiness and a 3-day absence in August 2018. However, she had refused to sign it because AEA did not provide enough reason to give her a first warning letter. 

The Petitioner already asked for written permission in advance to her direct supervisor to deal with her child\'s treatment and care in one of the hospitals in Bekasi. The proof of the child\'s treatment and care was submitted to the supervisor directly when she returned to work. 

Even though the Petitioner had already requested written permission from her direct supervisor, Marthen added, Rp453,416 was deducted from the Petitioner\'s salary in August 2018, as stated in her salary slip in August 2018. According to the Petitioner, the company did not have enough reason to impose first warning sanction to her. Therefore, the Petitioner refused to sign the letter, including potential second and third warning letters from AEA. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)