The Petitioner’s attorney M. Rizky Yuda Prawira explaining the petition revision in the judicial review hearing of Law Number 3 of 2009 on the Supreme Court and Law Number 2 of 2004 on the Settlement of Industrial Relations Disputes, Monday (23/9) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) held the revision hearing of the judicial review of Law Number 3 of 2009 on the Supreme Court and Law Number 2 of 2004 on the Settlement of Industrial Relations Disputes (PPHI) on Monday afternoon (23/9/2019).

One of the Petitioner’s attorneys M. Rizky Yuda Prawira delivered the revision of the petition’s object. The current object of the petition is only Article 57 of the PPHI Law. Previously, the Petitioner would also examine Article 28 Paragraph (1) letter c of the Supreme Court Law. "Thus an article is reduced for review," Rizky told the bench led by Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo.

In addition, the Petitioner revised the chronology of concrete case. "So, we will only convey the gist," said Rizky.

Marion Kova as Petitioner of case No. 46/PUU-XVII/2019 previously requested the judicial review of Article 28 paragraph (1) letter c of the Supreme Court Law and Article 57 of the Industrial Relations Dispute (PPHI) Law. "The Petitioner is an Indonesian citizen who used to work in Perum Peruri [state-owned securities paper and banknote printing company] but was dismissed because she was thought to have slandered Perum Peruri administrators in connection with [her] complaint to the Audit Board (BPK) on April 4, 2014 related to machinery issues at Perum Peruri," said M. Ali Hasan, one of the Petitioner\'s attorneys.

Perum Peruri considered what she did a prohibited act that must be categorized as a "gross misconduct" based on the provision of Article 108 paragraph (45) of the Peruri Collective Labor Agreement (PKB) for the 2014-2015 Period. On March 18, 2015 the Petitioner was dismissed by Perum Peruri and reported to the police on charges of slander as stipulated in Article 310 paragraph (2) and Article 311 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code (KUHP).

The dispute was decided by the Industrial Relations Court (PHI) in ruling No. 536 K/PDT.SUS–PHI/2016 on August 3, 2016 juncto 09/PDT.SUS–PHI/2016/PN.BDG on March 31, 2016. Both rulings declared that the Petitioner was proven to have had violated the Collective Labor Agreement of Peruri for 2014–2015 and committed a "gross misconduct."

On October 9, 2017 through Decision No. 303/Pid.B/2017/PN.JKT.SEL, the action of the a quo was declared not to be a criminal act and she was acquitted. The public prosecutor field an appeal against the ruling. The Supreme Court through Decision No. 1381 K/PID/2017 dated January 17, 2018 affirmed that the action as alleged by Perum Peruri could not be categorized as slander. Therefore, the Petitioner must be deemed to have not violated Peruri PKB 2014-2015 and never committed a "gross misconduct" as referred to in Article 158 paragraph (1) of the Manpower Law. 

Then, the Petitioner requested a judicial review (PK) of the Industrial Relations Court ruling. However, the petition could not be sent to the Supreme Court to be reviewed, based on the Circular of the Supreme Court No. 3 of 2018 concerning the Application of the Formulation of the Results of the Supreme Court Plenary Meeting of 2018. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA) 

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti