Wednesday, April 21, 2021 | 14:11 WIB
Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto with Constitutional Justices Saldi Isra and Manahan M. P. Sitompul opening the second hearing of Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation, Wednesday (21/4/2021) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.
JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) held a petition revision hearing of Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation on Wednesday, April 21, 2021. The Petitioners of case No. 105/PUU-XVIII/2020 are the chairman of the Garment and Leather Textile Workers’ Union Federation - All-Indonesian Workers Union Indonesia (PP FSP TSK-SPSI) Roy Jinto and 12 individual petitioners.
The Petitioners’ attorney Cahya Sehabudin Malik delivered the revisions to the petition following the justices’ advice at the preliminary hearing. The revisions include the articles being petitioned and the Petitioners’ profiles in relation to their legal standing.
“We have revised [the legal standing of] Petitioner I, who are representing an organization, following Your Highness’ directions, on pages 1 and 2. FSP TSK-SPSI is represented by the general chairman and secretary. We laid out the individual Petitioners on pages 2-5. They are workers from several companies,” Cahya explained to the panel chaired by Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto.
The Petitioners’ constitutional rights have been separated into the formal and material judicial review. “We also explained the background of the formal review on pages 54-78, points 1-92. The touchstones for the formal review are Article 22A, Article 20 paragraph (5), Article 43 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution; Law No. 12 of 2011 on Lawmaking in conjunction with Law No. 15 of 2019 on the Amendment to Law No. 12 of 2011; Article 163 paragraph (2) of Law No. 17 of 2014 on MPR, DPR, DPD, dan DPRD; Article 113 paragraph (6), Article 226, Article 163, Article 164 of DPR Regulation No. 1 of 2020 on Rules of Conduct,” he explained.
Also read: Textile Workers’ Union Federation Challenges Job Creation Law
The Petitioners are challenging Article 81 point 1, Article 13 paragraph (1) letter c point 2, Article 14 paragraph (1) point 3, Article 37 paragraph (1) letter b point 4, Article 42 paragraph 12, Article 56 paragraph (3) and paragraph ( 4) point 13, Article 57 point 14, Article 58 paragraph (2) point 15, Article 59 point 16, Article 61 paragraph (1) letter c point 20, Article 66 paragraph 23, Article 79 paragraph (2) letter b point 24 , Article 88 point 25, Article 88A paragraph (7), Article 88B, Article 88C point 30, Article 92 point 37, Article 151 point 38, Article 151A point 42, Article 154A point 44, and Article 156 paragraph (4) letter c of the second part of Chapter IV of the Job Creation Law.
Petitioner I is a federation workers union, while the others are individual petitioners who are employed at various textile factories in West Java Province. The petition of formal review claims that based on Article 6A paragraph (1) and Article 19 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, the DPR (House) and the president as legislators have legitimacy as they were elected through direct general elections by the people, including the Petitioners. This means that they carry the mandate of, among others, the Petitioners as citizens and constituents. They have been given lawmaking authority according to Article 20 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution to discuss bills, including the Job Creation bill, and to approve them, following Article 20 paragraph (2) of the Constitution 1945.
The Petitioners claimed that the Job Creation Law doesn’t have enough basis of academic texts and is not based on a comprehensive analysis of the changes in 79 laws, especially the second part of Chapter IV on Manpower in Law No. 13 of 2003 on Manpower, and doesn’t justify the urgency of the changes to the Manpower Law. They saw the academic texts of the Job Creation Law a mere formality.
The Petitioners believe the drafting of the Job Creation Law didn’t involve the public, which includes the Petitioners, which is a violation of Article 22A of the 1945 Constitution and Articles 88 and 96 of Law No. 12 of 2011. The academic texts and bills of the a quo law should’ve been published and discussed openly in the public sphere. Instead, they only involved employers in the Omnibus Law taskforce, none of whose members are from workers unions.
The Petitioners saw many fatal blunders in the drafting of the Job Creation Law that violates fundamental principles and constitutional norms of lawmaking. In addition, their derivative provisions have resulted in unconstitutional content of the law, particularly the second part of Chapter IV. This part is ineffective in answering labor issues and doesn’t focus on protecting and improving the welfare of workers/laborers. The law’s materials lacked conceptual and holistic ideas about the grand design of future employment in Indonesia. Instead, they reduced the rights of workers/laborers, which are regulated in the Manpower Law.
The Petitioners believe that the second part of Chapter IV has revised and removed norms in the Manpower Law and created new ones. This, they claimed, definitely has harmed or will potentially harm their constitutional rights. Article 13 paragraph (1) letter c of the law 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, which was previously required in Article 88A paragraph (1) of the Manpower Law, following Article 81 point 25 of the second part of Chapter IV.
Writer: Nano Tresna Arfana
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR: Fitri Yuliana
Translator: Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Translation uploaded on 4/22/2021 14:22 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.
Wednesday, April 21, 2021 | 14:11 WIB 477