Wednesday, April 21, 2021 | 08:56 WIB
The Petitioners’ attorneys at the virtual preliminary hearing of Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation, Tuesday (20/4/2021). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.
JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) held another hearing of Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation. The petition No. 3/PUU-XIX/2021 was filed by Sudarto and Yayan Supyan, general chairman and secretary of the central executive board of the Federation of Cigarette, Tobacco, Food, and Beverage Workers - All-Indonesian Workers Union Indonesia (FSP RTMM-SPSI). This preliminary hearing took place on Tuesday afternoon, April 20, 2021.
Attorney Andri represented the Petitioners of case No. 3/PUU-XIX/2021, who requested the material judicial review of Article 81 points 15, 16, 17, 42, and 44 of the second part of Chapter IV of Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation. The Petitioners are managers of a national workers union formed by and for workers. The union serves to fight for, defend, and protect the rights and interests of workers and improve the welfare of workers and their families in a free, open, independent, democratic, and responsible manner pursuant to Law No. 21 of 2020 on Workers Union/Labor Union.
In the petition, the Petitioners alleged that the enactment of Chapter IV of the Job Creation Law—dubbed the labor cluster—has greatly harmed the constitutional rights of workers/laborers and workers/labor unions stipulated in the 1945 Constitution. It has led to reduction of wages, abolition of contract length in employment agreement made for a specified period of time (PKWT), expansion of outsourcing, reduction of severance pay, fear of workers to be members and/or administrators of workers/labor unions and/or carrying out activities of workers/labor unions.
The Petitioners also alleged that the substance of Article 59, Article 61 paragraph (1) letter c, Article 61A, Article 154A, and Article 156 of the a quo law violates Article 27 paragraph (2), Article 28, Article 28D paragraphs (1) and (2), Article 28G paragraph (1), Article 28H paragraph (4), Article 28I paragraph (2), and Article 33 paragraph (1) of the Constitution 1945 for degrading the basic rights of workers/laborers and workers/labor unions. The law violates Law No. 13 of 2003 and Pancasila. It is irrelevant to the needs of workers/laborers, has created legal vacuum in industrial relations, and violates lawmaking principles, human rights, as well as the ILO Conventions and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
The Petitioners believe that Article 59, Article 61 paragraph (1) letter c, Article 61A, Article 154A, and Article 156 of the a quo law are interrelated because even though the Petitioners didn’t explicitly mention all articles in the labor cluster, they intended to request the material judicial review of all of those articles. Therefore, they believe there are grounds to declare all articles in the labor cluster unconstitutional and not legally binding.
The Petitioners also argued that in the law, PKWT now applies without a specified period of time, annulling the legal protection previously granted to such agreements. They argued this harmed workers/laborers because they would find it hard to find a new job after their contracts end, their career wouldn’t advance, and their skills wouldn’t improve. But all the while, raise in pay and allowances are hard to come by.
Justices’ Advice
Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat questioned the identity of Petitioners of case No. 3/PUU-XIX/2021 as representatives of the Federation of Cigarette, Tobacco, Food, and Beverage Workers - All-Indonesian Workers Union Indonesia. The Petitioners’ attorneys said they are a workers union.
“If [you are] a workers union, who represents you according to your statutes/bylaws?” Justice Arief asked. The attorneys said that the union is represented by a general chairman and a secretary.
“Then, is the Petitioner one organization or individuals?” Justice Arief asked again. The attorneys said it is the workers union. Justice Arief then stressed that that should be reflected in the petition, and that the Petitioners must explain their legal standing.
Next, Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul highlighted the format of petition No. 3/PUU-XIX/2021, first regarding the subject of the judicial review.
“There must be articles to review. The current petition made it as if it were formal judicial review, when it is material. The Petitioners showed doubts. Are all the articles in the second part of Chapter IV of Law No. 11 of 2020 petitioned or only the articles mentioned? It must be emphasized as it concerns the content of the petition,” said Justice Manahan. He also requested that the petitum be made more concrete.
Similary, panel chair Justice Aswanto echoed the advice by the other two justices and that for the petition No. 3/PUU-XIX/2021, the posita and petitum should be interrelated, as Justice Arief had previously said.
The panel gave the Petitioners 14 workdays to revise the petition. The petition revision hearing will take place on Monday, May 3, 2021.
Writer : Nano Tresna Arfana
Editor : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR : Raisa Ayudhita P.
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Translation uploaded on 4/21/2021 14:26 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 | 08:56 WIB 333