---

Attorney Sari Agustin conveying the subjects of the petition in the preliminary judicial review hearing of the Industrial Relations Law, Tuesday (30/4) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court held the preliminary judicial review hearing of Law No. 2 of 2004 on Industrial Relations Disputes Settlement (PPHI Law) on Tuesday (30/4/2019). The petition No. 34/PUU-XVII/2019 was filed by PT Hollit International represented by Director Anne Patricia Sutanto.

The Petitioner requested the judicial review of Article 56 of the PPHI Law, which reads, “The Industrial Court is assigned and authorized to investigate and adjudicate: a. at the first level regarding disputes on rights; b. at the first and final levels regarding disputes on interests; c. at the first level regarding disputes on termination of employment; d. at the first and final levels regarding disputes between workers unions / labor unions in one company.”

The Petitioner claimed that she has been aggrieved by the enactment of the a quo law along the principle “fair treatment and legal certainty before the law” in a dispute settlement at the Industrial Relations Court. “The Petitioner as sued by Mayadevi Khrisnasari for employment termination dispute that was rejected at the first court,” said one of the attorneys, Hendrik Setiawan.

The plaintiff filed a cassation to the Supreme Court, which was granted. The Supreme Court declared that the Petitioner (defendant) had violated an agreement dated July 19, 2017 between the plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant was obligated to pay for the plaintiff’s right amounting to Rp302,442,525.

The Petitioner claimed the justices had made a flawed ruling. She found new evidence and intended to file a request for judicial review of the cassation ruling that has permanent legal force (incraht) despite being aware that the extraordinary legal measure is not regulated and has no strong basis in the PPHI Law. Based on that reasoning, the Petitioner requested that the Constitutional Court declare the impugned article not legally binding and unconstitutional.

Strengthen Constitutional Loss 

Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams advised that the Petitioner learn the format of petition at the Constitutional Court. “[Samples of petition at the Constitutional Court] is available on the website,” he said. He also advised them to strengthen the constitutional loss and the background, as well as synchronize the posita and petitum.

Justice Wahidudidin stated that the spirit of the PPHI Law lies in Article 56. “If you request that the entirety of Article 56 be revoked, the Law will fall apart. Article 56 is the soul of the PPHI Law,” he asserted.

Panel chairman Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul observed the petitum. “The petitum read out by the Petitioner’s attorney is vastly different from what we received, dated April 8, 2019. Are there any differences?” he asked.

Attorney Hendrik Setiawan said that the petitum read out was the revised version for the petition revision hearing. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---