---

The PLN workers union head Eko Sumantri delivering the petition in the material review hearing of Article 154 letter c of Law No. 13 of 2003 on Manpower, Wednesday (26/8) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/M. Nur.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) held a material review hearing of Article 154 letter c ofLaw No. 13 of 2003 on Manpower on Wednesday, August 26, 2020. The petition No. 68/PUU-XVIII/2020 was filed by Eko Sumantri and Sarwono, chairman and secretary general of the workers union of PT PLN (Persero) Indonesia.

Eko Sumantri argued that the a quo article has led to multiple interpretations of retirement age for company workers, in that employers can interpret it however they like. This is because work agreements, company rules and regulations, collective work agreements, and laws and regulations interpret retirement age differently.

He believes that based on the Collective Labor Agreement (PKB) of 2010-2012 and its amendment between the PT PLN (Persero) and the PLN workers union, the retirement age among workers were different. It was set at 46 for some workers and 56 for others. This was affirmed in Article 15 of the Director’s Decree No. 1337.K/DIR/2011 on the Amendment to the Director’s Decree No. 379.K/DIR/2010 on the Human Capital Management System, while in fact Article 39 paragraph (4) of Law No. 40 of 2004 stipulates, “Retirement age is established as prescribed by statute.”

Retirement age is regulated in Article 15 paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) of the Government Regulation (PP) No. 45 of 2015 on the Implementation of Pension Security Program, which is the guidelines for the implementation of Article 41 paragraph (8) and Article 42 paragraph (2) of Law No. 40 of 2004.

Article 15 paragraph (1) of PP No. 45 of 2015 reads, “For the first time, the Retirement Age shall be stipulated at 56 (fifty-six) years old.” Article 15 paragraph (2) reads, “Per January 1, 2019, the Retirement Age as referred to in paragraph (1) shall be altered to 57 (fifty-seven) years old.” Article 15 paragraph (3) reads, “The Retirement Age as referred to in paragraph (2) shall hereinafter increase by 1 (one) year for every 3 (three) years until the Retirement Age reaches 65 (sixty-five) years old.”

Eko said that the different arrangements regarding retirement age has caused discrimination among workers. Therefore, the Petitioners requested that the Court declare Article 154 letter c of the Manpower Law along the phrase “work agreements, company rules and regulations, collective work agreements” be revoked.

Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh advised the Petitioners to strengthen their legal standing. “Representing workers union, there must be statute, bylaw. As the Petitioners are the chairman and secretary general, I think [you] are representation of the workers union. For workers [when petitioning for a case], should [they] ask supervisors for permission or not?” he asked.

Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo asked the Petitioners to review the petitum. At the first point, they requested that the Court declare the article unconstitutional while at the third point they asked it be declared conditionally constitutional.

“The petitum is contradictory. On the one hand, you asked that the norm be revoked, [be declared] unconstitutional because it violates the 1945 Constitution,” he said.

Writer: Utami Argawati
Editor: Nur R.
PR: Muhammad Halim
Translator: Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 9/2/2020 12:43 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.

---