Constitutional justices reading out the Decision No. 77/PUU-XVI/2018 on the judicial review of the Manpower Law on Monday (15/4/2019). Photo by Humas MK/Gani.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court rejected the entire judicial review petition of Article 172 of Law No. 13 of 2003 on Manpower, Monday (15/4/2019). The constitutional justices deem the argument of the petition legally groundless. “Rejects the Petitioners’ petition in its entirety,” said Chief Justice Anwar Usman reading out the Decision No. 77/PUU-XVI/2018.

The petition was filed by Banua Sanjaya Hasibuan, David M. Agung Aruan, and Achmad Kurnia, employees at PT Manito World. They had challenged the regulation on termination of workers due to prolonged illness. 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 will have to pay their obligation due to termination of employment submitted by the workers/laborers.

Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih, while reading legal considerations, said that the Petitioners must comprehensively comprehend the substance of work termination in the Manpower Law. They should be able to take anticipatory steps since recruitment process of workers/laborers in order to avoid hiring unhealthy workers/laborers or they can regularly check the health of workers/laborers. Therefore, the Petitioners should not have to worry that workers/laborers will ask to be laid off for prolonged illness.

"Therefore, the Petitioners’ argument requiring the addition of conditions in the form of medical records or official certificates from the hospital to prove prolonged illness experienced by workers/laborers is not relevant at all. Because, in principle, by referring to Article 153 paragraph (1) letter a of the Manpower Law, every worker/laborer who experiences illness must prove it by a statement from a doctor," she explained.

Regarding the disability caused by work accidents, Justice Enny said, the Manpower Law does not further explain it. However, we can refer to the Government Regulation No. 44 of 2015 on the Implementation of Work Accident and Life Insurance Programs where disability due to work accidents is essentially defined as a condition in which workers experience a state of diminishing or loss of bodily functions or loss of limbs that directly or indirectly results in reduced or loss of the ability of workers to carry out their work.

"Workplace accidents shall occur in work, including accidents on the way from home to work or vice versa and diseases caused by the work environment. For workers who are disabled due to work accidents whose, according to doctor\'s statement, duration of recovery cannot be ascertained, it is prohibited for employers to terminate their employment," said Justice Enny.

The Petitioners had requested that the Court revise Article 172 of the Manpower Law by adding into the article to 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).” The petitum, Justice Enny said, is a request for the Court to add into, and even make, a new norm. This is the authority of legislators, which is irrelevant to the Court.

"Moreover, there are no constitutional issues related to Article 172 of the Manpower Law, so the addition of norm as desired by the Petitioners is groundless. Therefore, the Petitioners\' argument is legally groundless," she said.