---

The Petitioner’s attorney Erdin Tahir delivering the subjects of the petition in the judicial review of the Manpower Law, Wednesday (12/8) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Gani.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The increasing number of expatriates coming into Indonesia each year drive two citizens to challenge the material of Law No. 13 of 2003 on Manpower regarding the phrases “certain positions” and “certain periods of time” in Article 42 paragraph (4) in Constitutional Court (MK) on Wednesday afternoon, August 12, 2020. The Petitioners of case No. 66/PUU-XVIII/2020 are Slamet Iswanto (Petitioner I) and Maul Gani (Petitioner II). The two residents of Southeast Sulawesi Province appeared at the preliminary hearing in person. They felt disadvantaged by the enactment of the a quo article, which reads, “Workers of foreign citizenship can be employed in Indonesia in employment relations for certain positions and for a certain period of time only.”

They claimed that the phrase “certain positions” is ambiguous and is not well-explained in the elucidation to the law. There is no specific explanation on the positions in question or the type of positions that expatriates can be employed for. They believe this provision allows the Government to interpret it however it wishes. They also believe that it discriminates them as local workers because it also doesn’t specify the period of employment for expatriates to work in Indonesia.

“The regulation on the categories or types of positions that can be filled by foreign workers and the period of employment is [delegated to] the minister [of manpower],” said attorney Erdin Tahir.

The Petitioners argued that they can fill certain positions for foreign workers as stipulated in the Decree of the Minister of Manpower No. 228 of 2019 and that the phrase “certain periods of time” is ambiguous and harm the Petitioners’ chances to find work. They concluded that, therefore, the phrases “certain positions” and “certain periods of time” are in violation of Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

Justices’ Advice 

Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh commented on the petition’s format, “Because the petitioners are more than one, write is down as [Petitioners]. In the petitum, note that the law must be accompanied by the state gazette and [its] supplement. Please [make it so that the writing of the articles] be consistent.” He also observed the Petitioners’ legal standing. He asked them to attach a copy of their undergraduate diplomas and employment cards to strengthen their argument.

Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo observed that the petition’s format is sufficient, but he advised the Petitioners to make it brief and avoid repetitions. He also asked them to elaborate on their constitutional damage due to the enactment of the norm. 

Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra, the panel chairman, observed the petitum. “You requested something different from [what was requested in previous petitions],” he said. Regarding the Petitioners’ legal standing, he advised them to detail the number of foreign workers in question.

“Give the justices the number of foreign workers entering (employment in Indonesia) so that the correlation [is perceived, then the evidence examined. In order for the Petitioners to [clarify their] legal standing, there needs to be accurate explanation on these foreign workers. If you can’t explain your constitutional damage, you will be considered lacking legal standing to file the petition,” he stressed. (*)

Writer: Nano Tresna Arfana
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari
PR: Annisa Lestari
Photographer: Gani
Translator: Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 8/13/2020 16:57 WIB

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case where any differences occur between the English and the Indonesian version, the Indonesian version will prevail.

---