---

Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto opening the preliminary hearing of the formal and material judicial review of Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation, Wednesday (16/12/2020) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) held a preliminary hearing of the formal and material judicial review of Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation on Wednesday, December 16, 2020 virtually. The case No. 105/PUU-XVIII/2020 was filed by the Garment and Leather Textile Workers’ Union Federation - All-Indonesian Workers Union Indonesia (PPFSP TSK-SPSI) and 12 individual petitioners who are employed at various textile factories in West Java Province.

At the hearing presided over by Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto (panel chair), Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul, and Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra, the Petitioners alleged that Article 13 point 1, Article 14 point 2, Article 37 point 3, through Article 156 paragraph (4) point 44 of the Job Creation Law are unconstitutional.

Roy Jinto Ferianto as one of the Petitioners said, in relation to the formal judicial review, the Petitioners weren’t involved in the planning, drafting, and ratification of the law. It only involved the employers. They also alleged that the draft of the bill was never discussed with the Petitioners officially at the House’s Legislation Body (Baleg). On September 25, 2020, the Government proposed changes to the draft, which included Chapter IV on Manpower, especially Articles 80, 81, 82, and 83. “The Petitioners have observed that some of the articles in this Chapter IV do not have legal reasoning or have not been reviewed in any academic texts,” he explained.

Manpower Issues

In terms of substance, the Petitioners also focus on the second part of Chapter IV on Manpower, which they believe violate constitutional norms, do not provide solutions to manpower issues, and are not oriented toward the protection and improvement of workers’ welfare.

For example, the Petitioners alleged, Article 13 point 1 letter c doesn’t explain company training clearly, which potentially leads to exploitation of job seekers by the companies with the excuse that training is done in the company’s production area but the company and work training participants are not bound by any work contract. Therefore, the company is not obligated to pay the workers. This, the Petitioners argued, violates Article 27 paragraph (2) and Article 28D paragraphs (1) and (2) of the 1945 Constitution.

Justices’ Advice

In response to the petition, Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul observed that the Petitioners’ legal standing for the material and formal judicial review must be elaborated separately, in relation to their statuses as a federation and individuals. He also advised that the touchstones of the petition be included in the background. The elaboration will show their constitutional rights that are violated by the norms.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra said the format of the petition should be simplified by removing the introduction and any parts irrelevant to the petition. Similar to Justice Manahan, he highlighted the legal standing. He said that the number of petitioners is not limited, but it is not the quantity that matters but the elaboration of their legal standing. “For example, one represents an organization while two or three are individual citizens. There will be many things to explain as each of the petitioners’ legal standing has to be elaborated,” he explained.

Next, Chief Justice Anwar Usman questioned the signatures on the power of attorney and the petition, which seemed different. He advised the attorneys to study this because if forgery is proven, the case might be halted. He also requested that the Petitioners explain the norms in simple terms in relation to the 1945 Constitution. The Petitioners must refer to the Constitution to judge whether the a quo articles harmed them factually or potentially and state that if the petition is granted, the impairment will not occur again.

Before concluding the hearing, Justice Aswanto informed that the Petitioners were to submit the revision by Tuesday, December 29, 2020 at 14:00 WIB to the Registrar’s Office. 

Writer: Sri Pujianti
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari
PR: Fitri Yuliana
Translator: Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 12/18/2020 22:50 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.

---