---

Panel preliminary examination hearing of the judicial review of the Industrial Relations Dispute Settlement (PPHI) Law, Monday (9/11/2020) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Gani.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) held the preliminary examination hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 2 of 2004 on the Industrial Relations Dispute Settlement (PPHI) on Monday noon, November 9, 2020. The petition of case No. 89/PUU-XVIII/2020 was filed by Yok Sagita. He challenges Article 55 of the PPHI Law, which reads, “The Industrial Relations Court is a special court within the general court.” He was the logistics manager of PT Frina Lestari Nusantara from October 19, 2010 to January 4, 2017 and was subsequently the director on robotics in the production.

The Petitioner’s attorney Bernard Brando Yustisio said his client had lost his constitutional right that was protected by Article 28D paragraph (1) and Article 28H paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution because he didn’t receive protection, legal certainty, and justice when the company unilaterally terminated his employment without any legal process, which is regulated in Law No. 13 of 2003 on Manpower. The Petitioner demonstrated good performance at the company, and helped build and develop it after its factory in Sentul caught fire and was almost entirely burned. The factory was then relocated to the industrial area Deltamas in Bekasi Regency and continued to progress.

"Due to the enactment of Article 55 of the PPHI Law, the industrial court is interpreted as a special court that doesn’t allow extraordinary legal remedies while, on the other hand, a special court can also be interpreted as a labor court. So, the Petitioners’ constitutional rights have been violated. He cannot file for extraordinary legal remedies [in the form of] a judicial review and fight for his rights as a worker. So, the Petitioner as a justice seeker didn’t receive fair recognition, guarantee, protection, and legal certainty as referred to in Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution and didn’t receive ease and special treatment to obtain opportunities and didn’t receive equal benefits for equality and justice as referred to in Article 28H paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution," Bernard said before the panel of justices.

Justices’ Advice

Panel chairman Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul advised the Petitioner regarding the format of the petition, “Legal standing is separate, followed by the background to the petition. In the background, you elaborate whether the norm being petitioned is against the touchstones, Article 28D paragraph (1) and Article 28H paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution.”

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams stated that the Constitutional Court Regulation No. 6 of 2005 has detailed the format of the judicial review petition in the Constitutional Court. He advised the Petitioner to study the standard format, use existing terminologies, and explain the object of the judicial review of Article 55 of Law No. 2 of 2004.

Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh advised the Petitioner to elaborate his argument in relation to his constitutional impairment. “The articles used as touchstones must be elaborated to convince the justices. After this preliminary hearing, there will be a petition revision hearing, after which the panel will report to the justice deliberation meeting. It will be decided whether the [case] will continue or not. In the petitum, the touchstones need no elaboration. Just write that [the article petitioned] is against the 1945 Constitution,” he said.

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

Translation uploaded on 11/14/2020 09:49 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.

---