---

The Petitioner’s attorneys Sari Agustin and Arief Sunjaya listening to the ruling of Law No. 2 of 2004 on Industrial Relations Disputes Settlement (PPHI) on Monday (23/5) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa. 

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The judicial review of Law No. 2 of 2004 on Industrial Relations Disputes Settlement (PPHI) was rejected by the Constitutional Court (MK) as per Decision No. 34/PUU-XVII/2019. The case was petitioned by PT Hollit International.

"The verdict adjudicated, declared the petition of the Petitioner insofar as Article 56 of the PPHI Law cannot be accepted. Rejects the Petitioner\\'s petition for the rest," said plenary chair Chief Justice Anwar Usman with the other constitutional justices in the verdict hearing on Monday (9/23/2019). 

Menurut Mahkamah, pada alasan permohonan, Pemohon hanya menjelaskan norma pengujian yakni Pasal 56 huruf c UU PPHI dan sama sekali tidak terdapat argumentasi pertentangan norma antara Pasal 56 UU PPHI dengan UUD 1945. “Dengan demikian, menurut Mahkamah. petitum tersebut adalah kabur,” kata Hakim Konstitusi Manahan MP Sitompul yang membacakan pendapat Mahkamah. 

According to the Court, the Petitioner only explained Article 56 letter c of the PPHI Law and did not argue how the a quo article contradict the 1945 Constitution. "Thus, according to the Court. the petitum is vague," said Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul, who read out the opinion of the Court.

The Court is of the opinion that the provision in Article 34 of the Supreme Court Law that allows the judicial review (PK) of court decisions that have obtained permanent legal force must not be interpreted that every court decision that has obtained legal force can still be challenged with a judicial review petition. 

"[…] Article 34 of the Supreme Court Law is a general regulation (lex generalis) that must be interpreted that the [judicial review] can only be imposed on decisions that have permanent legal force as long as the general provisions are not excluded by the provisions of specific laws (lex specialis), both because of the nature of the case and because of the conditions determined to be able to file a, [judicial review petition]," Justice Manahan explained. 

In this context, according to the Court, Article 56 of the PPHI Law is a specialist legal norm derived from Article 34 of the Supreme Court Law. Such specificity is given with consideration that the settlement of industrial relations cases is aimed at ensuring the implementation of the fast, effective, fair, and cost-effective principles. So, by eliminating the judicial review, it is expected that the production process in a company that employs employees is not disrupted. 

"Therefore, the Petitioner\\'s argument regarding the unconstitutionality of Article 56 letter c of the PPHI Law is legally groundless. Based on all the legal considerations above, the Court is of the opinion that the Petitioner\\'s argument insofar as Article 56 of the PPHI Law is vague," Justice Manahan 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/NRA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti

---