Attorney Hendrik Setiawan conveying points of revision in the judicial review hearing of the Law on Industrial Relations Disputes Settlement (PPHI) on Tuesday (14/5) 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 revision judicial review hearing of the Law on Industrial Relations Disputes Settlement (PPHI) on Tuesday (14/5/2019). Through attorney Hendrik Setiawan, the Petitioner delivered a number of revisions, first, to its format. "We have revised the format and structure of the petition. The revision has been adjusted to the example on the website of the Constitutional Court," Hendrik said.

The next revision was on the legal standing of the Petitioner. "To answer whether the Petitioner has the right or authority to act, both inside and outside the court, to represent the interests of the company, we provide a revision based on Deed of Establishment No. 28 signed by Notary Siti Safarijah based on additional evidence P-8 and PT Hollit International’s Board of Directors Decree regarding the granting of authority from the president director to the director Anne Patricia Sutanto based on additional evidence P-9," Hendrik explained. 

Therefore, Hendrik stressed, the Petitioner has legal standing. "Hopefully, this petition is accepted and [the court] moves on to substance. In a sense, Deed of Establishment Number 28 explains that the directors have the authority to represent the interests, the commissioner and so on, inside and outside the court," Hendrik said. 

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 was sued for employment termination dispute that was rejected at the first court.

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. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)