The Petitioner’s attorney Victor Santoso Tandiasa delivering the subject matter of the petition virtually at the preliminary judicial review hearing of the Job Creation Law, Thursday (12/11/2020). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.
JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The preliminary examination hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation was held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Thursday noon, November 12, 2020. The hearing for cases No. 91/PUU-XVIII/2020 and 95/PUU-XVIII/2020 was presided over by Constitutional Justices Arief Hidayat (chair), Wahiduddin Adams, and Manahan M. P. Sitompul.
After opening the virtual hearing, Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat informed that the petition No. 95/PUU-XVIII/2020 had been withdrawn and asked the Petitioner’s attorney regarding the request letter sent to the Court. Attorney Himas Muhammady I. El Hakim confirmed the withdrawal.
The panel of justices then heard the arguments of the Petitioners of case No. 91/PUU-XVIII/2020 through attorney Viktor Santoso Tandiasa. Petitioners I-V in the case are Hakiimi Irawan Bangkid Pamungkas, Novita Widyana, Elin Dian Sulistiyowati, Alin Septiana, dan Ali Sujito. They are individual citizens who, due to the enactment of the Job Creation Law, according to logical reasoning, might potentially lose constitutional rights for legal certainty and fair and decent living for their employment.
“Petitioner I worked at a company with an employment agreement made for a specified period of time (PKWT) as a technician helper. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, his employment was unilaterally terminated by the company where he worked. He now is looking for employment as a technician helper or a similar position. The Job Creation Law [contains Article 81] that eliminates the employment period of PKWT contracts. In addition, in the Manpower cluster, the [law] contains norms that violates Petitioner I’s constitutional rights for fair and decent living in the employment. The norms cut weekly rest, eliminates several salary policies that protected workers, eliminated punishments for employers who don’t pay [workers’] wages,” attorney Happy Hayati Helmi explained.
Meanwhile, Petitioner II is an administration and office administration student of the vocational high school SMK Negeri I Ngawi. After graduating, she would seek employment according to her education. However, she could potentially be employed under an agreement made for unspecified period of time (PKWTT) under the Job Creation Law.
Petitioner III is an undergraduate student of Education Administration at Brawijaya University while Petitioner IV is an undergraduate student of Office Administration at the State University of Malang. Petitioner V is a student at the Natural Sciences Education program at Modern Ngawi Teacher Training College (STKIP).
The Petitioners believe that the Job Creation Law will lead to education being commercialized, especially by Article 150 that amended Article 3 of Law No. 39 of 2009 on Special Economic Zones (KEK) and put education in the special economic zones.
The Job Creation Law is believed to restrict Petitioners II-V from obtaining fair legal certainty to develop themselves by fulfilling their basic need for education and from benefitting from knowledge and technology to improve their quality of life.
Tandiasa said the Petitioners requested the formal judicial review of Article 20 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution, which reads, “The President shall endorse into law a bill that has reached a joint agreement,” as well as Article 22A paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution, which reads, “Further provisions regarding the rights of the DPR and of the members of the DPR shall be regulated by law.”
The Petitioners believe the Job Creation Law to be part of the Omnibus Law that simplifies 78 laws into 11 cluster of one Job Creation Law. The formation is said to have violated lawmaking process as it defies the principles of clarity of objectives, efficiency and serviceability, clarity of formulation, and openness.
On October 5, 2020, the DPR (House of Representatives) and the president ratified the 905-page Job Creation bill into law. However, the Baleg (House’s Legislation Body) said that the draft wasn’t final and it was still finalized. A 1,035-page draft was confirmed by the House’s secretary-general as the final draft. It turns out that 130 pages was added to the 905-page draft approved by the House and the president, with substance changes. As the changes include material changes, not merely technical/formatting changes, this has violated Article 72 paragraph (2) of Law No. 12 of 2011 and its elucidation.
In response to the arguments, Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams reminded the attorneys that when the petition was filed to the Constitutional Court, the law in question hadn’t been numbered. “In relation to this formal judicial review, the Constitutional Court Decision No. 27/PUU-VII/2009 states that the deadline for the formal judicial review is 45 days after the law is promulgated in the State Gazette. However, the petition was filed when the law hadn’t been promulgated in the State Gazette,” he added.
Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul commented on the petition summary. “The summary is a brief of the content of the petition. It should not contain anything beyond the petition,” he said. Then, Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat asked the Petitioners to affirm their legal standing. “The legal standing in material and formal judicial review cases differs,” he explained.
Writer: Nano Tresna Arfana
Editor: Nur R.
PR: Tiara Agustina
Translator: Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Translation uploaded on 11/14/2020 09:57 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.
Friday, November 13, 2020 | 11:40 WIB 547