Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams reading out the Court’s legal considerations at the ruling hearing of the material judicial review of Law No. 2 of 2004 on the Industrial Relations Dispute Settlement, Thursday (17/12/2020) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.
JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) ruled to strike out the material judicial review petition of Law No. 2 of 2004 on the Industrial Relations Dispute Settlement (PPHI). The petition was filed by employee Yok Sagita.
"The [Court] adjudicated, declares the Petitioners’ petition not accepted," said plenary chairman Chief Constitutional Justice Anwar Usman along with the other constitutional justices in the pronouncement of the Decision No. 89/PUU-XVIII/2020, Thursday, December 17, 2020.
The Petitioner challenged the word “special” in Article 55 of the PPHI Law, in which the industrial court is interpreted as a special court that doesn’t allow extraordinary legal remedies. Therefore, he couldn’t file for extraordinary legal remedies in the form of a judicial review. The article reads, “The Industrial Relations Court is a special court within the general court.”
After reviewing the Petitioner’s arguments, especially in the posita and petitum, the Court discovered that the Petitioner actually challenged the provision on the classification of judicial institutions in Article 25 paragraph (1) of Law No. 48 of 2009 on Judicial Power, that states that the courts under the Supreme Court are the district court, the religious court, the military court, and the state administrative court.
“Then, Article 27 paragraph (1) of Law No. 48 of 2009 states that special courts can only be formed in one of the court systems under the Supreme Court as referred to in Article 25. The elucidation to Article 27 paragraph (1) of Law No. 48 of 2009 states that special courts are the juvenile court, the human rights court, the anti-corruption court, the industrial relations court, the commercial court, and the fisheries court within the general courts, as well as the tax court, which is within the state administration court,” said Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams reading out the Court’s opinions.
Due to its specialty, the procedural law is also special because it adheres to the principle of speedy trial. Article 55 of the PPHI Law also clearly states that the industrial relations court is a special court within the general courts, therefore it explains the position of the industrial relations court that shouldn’t be interpreted other than in the manner that is referred to in the a quo norm (expressis verbis).
Therefore, the Court believes, the petition shouldn’t have challenged Article 55 of the PPHI Law. The Petitioner’s constitutional impairment that he alleged had been due to Article 55, the Court opined, concerned Articles 56 and 57. The Court also considered the Constitutional Court Decisions No. 34/PUU-XVII/2019 dated September 23, 2019 and No. 46/PUU-XVII/2019 dated October 23, 2019
The Court also stated that Article 34 of the Supreme Court Law, which allows for judicial review on court decisions that have legal force, cannot be interpreted that any court decisions that have legal force can be petitioned for judicial review. The provision in the article is general (lex generalis), which must be interpreted that judicial review can only be done to decisions that have legal force as long as the provision isn’t precluded by special provisions of the law (lex specialis), either due to the nature of the cases or the requirements for judicial review.
In such a context, Article 56 of the PPHI Law is a special norm of Article 34 of the Supreme Court Law. Such specialty was granted so that the settlement of industrial relations cases be swift, effective, fair, and cost-effective. This will remove the judicial review so as not to hamper the production process in a company that hire workers.
The explanation above shows that the judicial review is precluded not entirely, but the nature of the cases and the requirements for judicial review are regulated in a special law. Therefore, the Petitioner’s argument on the unconstitutionality of Article 56 of the PPHI Law was legally groundless.
After observing the petitum, the Court argued that it requested two different interpretations of the word “special.” The justice panel had asked about this at the petition revision hearing, in which the Petitioner answered that the two petitum were separate. However, the absence of the word “or” between the two created contradiction, leading to ambiguity. Therefore, the Court ruled that the petition was obscure.
Writer: Nano Tresna Arfana
Editor: Nur R.
PR: Annisa Lestari
Translator: Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Translation uploaded on 12/18/2020 22:54 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.