Deputy Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Aswanto opening the petition revision hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation, Monday (4/1/2020) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.
JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) once again held a material judicial review hearing of Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation on Monday, January 4, 2021. The petition No. 108/PUU-XVIII/2020 was filed by advocates Ignatius Supriyadi, Sidik, and Janteri. They challenge Article 6, Article 17 point 16, Article 24 point 44, Article 25 point 10, Article 27 point 14, Article 34 point 2, Article 41 point 25, Article 50 point 9, Article 52 point 27, Article 82 point 2, Article 114 point 5, Article 124 point 2, Article 150 point 31, Article 151, and Article 175 point 6 of the Job Creation Law.
At the hearing chaired by the Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto, Sidik said that they had revised the petition according to the justices’ advice during the preliminary hearing. The constitutional impairment was added with a description of the Petitioners’ legal standing as taxpayers. They also added a description of the clusters based on the chapters in the Job Creation Law to their constitutional impairment. They also added a description of the causal relationship between the material and the constitutional impairment that they had experienced or will potentially experience. Furthermore, in the legal reasoning, they added a summary of each article being reviewed.
Also read: Advocates Challenge Job Creation Law
At the preliminary hearing, the Petitioners said that the articles petitioned have erroneous reference to other articles or paragraphs and some contain unclear and uncertain material/substance, leading to legal uncertainty. They also felt harmed by the unclear material/substance when offering legal services to their clients. They requested that the Court expedite the proceedings because the implementing regulations in the a quo law are cross-sectoral. They noted that at least 15 ministries had to prepare for these implementing regulations. In their petitum, the Petitioners request that the Court declare the references in the a quo articles not legally binding insofar as not interpreted to follow that which was petitioned.
Writer: Utami Argawati
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari
PR: M. Halim
Translator: Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Translation uploaded on 01/04/2021 20:30 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.