The Petitioner’s attorney preliminary examination hearing of the judicial review of Law on the Protection of Indonesian Migrant Workers through video conference, Tuesday (12/5) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.
JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The preliminary judicial review hearing of Law No. 18 of 2017 on the Protection of Indonesian Migrant Workers (PPMI Law) was held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Tuesday (12/5/2020) in compliance with COVID-19 protocols. Panel chairman Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul first informed that the Court gives litigants the opportunity to request an online hearing amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.
“The [litigating] parties can use the online courtroom facilities from their respective residences by utilizing the technology [provided] by the Constitutional Court. In order to be able to use the online courtroom facilities, the parties are to request the Court to use the online courtroom facilities two days before the hearing by notifying their locations and the instruments that they have. The [software] used by the Constitutional Court are Cloudx and Zoom,” said Justice Manahan to the petitioners, who followed the hearing at Diponegoro University through video conference.
The Petitioners of case No. 20/PUU-XVIII/2020 are Sunaryo and Zarkasi. They challenge Article 5 letter d and Article 54 paragraph (1) letter b of the PPMI Law. Article 5 letter d of the PPMI Law reads, “Every Indonesian Migrant Worker who will work abroad must fulfill these requirements: … d. being registered and having Social Security membership number….” Article 54 paragraph (1) letter b of the PPMI Law reads, “In order to obtain SIP3MI as referred to in Article 51 paragraph (1), Indonesian Migrant Worker Placement Agency must fulfill the following requirements: … b. depositing money to a government bank of at least Rp1,500,000,000 (one billion five hundred million rupiah) that can be disbursed at any time as a collateral to fulfill the obligations in the Protection of Indonesian Migrant Workers.”
The Petitioners believe that Article 5 letter d and Article 54 paragraph (1) letter b of the PPMI Law harm their constitutional rights. The license for their business under the name of H. Sunaryo was revoked through the Decision of the Manpower Minister No. 107 of 2020 regarding the Revocation of the Permit of the Indonesian Migrant Worker Placement Agency PT Sentosa Karya Mandiri.
“The provision of the a quo articles requires that the Petitioners provide migrant workers who will work abroad with a social security membership number, in this case the Social Security Administrative Body (BPJS), which the Petitioners consider unsatisfactory. In addition, the a quo provision also burdens the Petitioners with a [mandatory] deposit of at least Rp1.5 billion as collateral for the protection of migrant workers. As a result, many companies cannot run their businesses. The government even arbitrarily revoked [business licenses],” said the Petitioners’ attorney Muhammad Junaedi.
The Petitioners also argue that Indonesian migrant worker placement companies (P3MI) comply with the guarantee and protection for every Indonesian citizen abroad to be able to avoid human trafficking as stipulated in Article 1 paragraph (1) of Law No. 21 of 2007 on the Eradication of the Criminal Act of Human Trafficking. That the institutional arrangement within the PPMI Law is imperative so that the constitutional guarantee can be implemented by P3MIs.
The Petitioners believe that the PPMI Law serves to empower P3MIs as migrant worker placement companies that have responsibilities from upstream to downstream. P3MI’s responsibilities as regulated in Article 52 of the PPMI Law play an important role in ensuring legal certainty for Indonesian migrant workers.
Different Petitum
Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul stated that the Petitioners’ petitum differed from what was written in the petition. He also requested that they elaborate their constitutional loss. “The background of the petition must also be shortened, clarified, [as] it doesn\'t need to be too long,” he added.
Justice Enny Nurbaningsih advised the Petitioners to make the petition concise but clear. “The attachment is unnecessary. The format is simple: the authorities of the Court, legal standing, posita, petitum. In addition, it is necessary to explain the legal standing of the Petitioners in the companies that [they] manage. It must be [stated] clearly in the statute and bylaws, what the capacity of the Petitioners is,” she said.
Justice Suhartoyo emphasized that the Petitioners’ status must be related to their constitutional interests in filing the petition to the Constitutional Court. “The person in charge of the company must be explained. There is no person-in-charge in the company’s structure. [Who] is the person-in-charge in the company? It must be explained. The Constitutional Court will not [review] the petition filed by the Petitioners, no matter how good it is, if it is not clear,” he said.
Before concluding the session, the justices reminded the Petitioners to submit a revised petition no later than Wednesday, May 27, 2020. (Nano Tresna Arfana/Halim/LA)
Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti
Translation uploaded on 05/13/2020
Tuesday, May 12, 2020 | 12:18 WIB 182