The Petitioners’ attorney Erdin Tahir delivering the petition revisions in the judicial review of the Manpower Law, Monday (7/9) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Gani.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The revision hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 13 of 2003 on Manpower was held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Monday afternoon, September 7, 2020. On behalf of the Petitioners, Erdin Tahir explained that they added two paragraphs of Article 42 of the Manpower Law to review. “We added paragraphs (5) and (6). In addition, the Petitioners added more touchstones, namely Article 5 paragraph (2) and Article 27 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution,” he said to the justice panel led by Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra.

The legal standing of the Petitioners was also revised by adding their education background: Petitioner I has a bachelor’s degree in law, while Petitioner II in economy. They also added more laws that regulate human rights in relation to workforce.

Also read: Provision on Positions and Employment Period for Expatriates Challenged

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 challenged the phrases “certain positions” and “certain periods of time” in Article 42 paragraph (4) of the Manpower Law. 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 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.

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

Translation uploaded on 9/8/2020 18:34 WIB

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