---

Chief Justice Anwar Usman opening the hearing for case No. 91/PUU-XVIII/2020 on the judicial review hearing of the Job Creation Law, Monday (18/1/2021). Photo by Humas MK/Teguh.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) delayed the evidentiary hearing for case No. 91/PUU-XVIII/2020 on the judicial review of Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation. The hearing on Monday, January 18, 2021 had been scheduled to hear the House of Representatives (DPR) and the Government, but the House was absent.

“The House [sent] a notice that it would be absent from today’s hearing as it was in session,” said plenary chair Chief Justice Anwar Usman.

The Government’s representatives I Ketut Hadi Priatna from the Coordinating Ministry for Economic Affairs, Budi Setiawati from the Ministry of State Secretariat, Fajrimei Abdulgofar Ardiansyah from the Executive Office of the President, as well as Ardiansyah and Wawan Zubaedi from the Ministry of Law and Human Rights attended the hearing virtually. The Government had also sent a request to delay the hearing.

“We have sent a letter to the Court to request a delay to deliver the President’s statement,” said Wawan Zubaedi.

In response, Justice Anwar Usman asked the Government’s reason for the request, to which I Ketut Hadi Priatna answered, “The Government still needs time to draft the statement in response to the Petitioners’s petition.”

Also read: Job Creation Law Allegedly Commercializes Education  

Petition No. 91/PUU-XVIII/2020 was filed by Hakiimi Irawan Bangkid Pamungkas, Novita Widyana, Elin Dian Sulistiyowati, Alin Septiana, dan Ali Sujito (Petitioners I-V). They are individual citizens who, due to the enactment of the Job Creation Law, according to logical reasoning, might potentially lose their 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

Meanwhile, Petitioner II is a vocational high school student majoring in administration and office administration at 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).

Also read: Petitioners of Job Creation Law Request Provisional Decision

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 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.

Writer: Nano Tresna Arfana
Editor: Nur R.
PR: Tiara Agustina
Translator: Yuniar Widiastuti (Editor: Indah Apriyanti)

Translation uploaded on 01/19/2020 16:50 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.

---