---

Petitioners Eko Sumantri and Sarwono reading out the petition revisions through video conference at the material review hearing of the Manpower Law, Tuesday (15/9) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) held another material review hearing of Article 154 letter c ofLaw No. 13 of 2003 on Manpower on Tuesday, September 15, 2020. The petitioners of case No. 68/PUU-XVIII/2020 are Eko Sumantri and Sarwono, chairman and secretary general of the workers union of PT PLN (Persero) Indonesia.

Eko Sumantri affirmed that the petitioners are individuals who act as chairman and secretary general of the workers union of PT PLN (Persero) Indonesia, who have a shared interest. The Petitioners added power of attorney letters from 112 members of the union, as per the justices’ advice in the previous hearing. They argued that unclear provision on retirement age allows employers to determine retirement age through work agreements, company rules and regulations, and collective work agreements, leading to multiple interpretations.

Also read: PLN Workers Union Challenges Provision on Retirement Age

At the preliminary hearing, the Petitioners argued that Article 154 letter c ofLaw No. 13 of 2003 on Manpower has led to multiple interpretations of retirement age for company workers. It reads, “The decision of the institute for the settlement of industrial relation disputes as referred to under subsection (3) of Article 151 is not needed if: c. The affected worker/laborer has reached a retirement age as stipulated under work agreements, enterprise rules and regulations, collective work agreements, or laws and regulations.”

They believe 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.”

As different arrangements regarding retirement age has caused discrimination among workers, 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.

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

Translation uploaded on 9/21/2020 11:03 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.

---