---

Thursday, April 22, 2021 | 09:33 WIB

The Petitioners’ attorney Eliadi Hulu explaining the petition at a virtual preliminary 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—Putu Bagus Dian Rendragraha and Simon Petrus Simbolon (Petitioners I-II), two persons with disabilities, challenged Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation to the Constitutional Court (MK). They requested the formal and material judicial review of Article 24 point 4, Article 24 point 13, Article 24 point 24, Article 24 point 28, Article 61 point 7, Article 81 point 15, and the elucidation to Article 55 point 3 of the law against Article 27 paragraph (2), Article 28D paragraph (1) and paragraph (2), Article 28G paragraph (2), Article 28H paragraph (2), and Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution.

Easy Access to Buildings

At the preliminary hearing of case No. 5/PUU-XIX/2020 on Wednesday, April 21, 2021, the panel consisted of Constitutional Justices Saldi Isra (panel chair), Wahiduddin Adams, and Suhartoyo. At the hearing, the Petitioners’ attorney Eliadi Hulu explained that Article 24 point 24 of the a quo law had annulled Article 27 of Law No. 28 of 2002 on Buildings; Article 24 point 13 of the a quo law had annulled Article 16 of the Buildings Law; Article 24 point 28 of the a quo law had annulled Article 31 of the Buildings Law; Article 61 point 7 of the a quo law had revised Article 29 paragraph (1) letter l of Law No. 44 of 2009 on Hospitals; and the elucidation to Article 55 point 3 of the a quo law had annulled that of Article 38 paragraph (2) of Law No. 22 of 2009 on Traffic along the phrase of “people with disabilities.”

He said the Petitioners, who didn’t attend the hearing, believe they have been disadvantaged by the a quo law, as they lost special treatment, easy access to buildings, and fair treatment by the state. Many buildings don’t provide facilities and easy access to individuals with disabilities like themselves.

Difficulty Finding Work

The Petitioners also claimed Article 81 point 15 of the a quo law had annulled Article 59 paragraph (1) of Law No. 13 of 2003 on Manpower. This means that any work that is predicted to be finished in a short amount of time will now be written into employment agreements made for a specified period of time (PKWTs). With the article not providing clear provision and legal certainty on work duration, it will potentially allow three-year contracts be written as PKWTs. This will reduce work opportunities for the Petitioners as employers tend to prioritize hiring of employees without physical or mental disabilities. They could be contract workers for more than three years, even as long as they live. This leads to human exploitation and might result in slavery, which is contrary to Article 27 paragraph (2) of Law No. 19 of 2011 on the Ratification of the Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Justices’ Advice

In response, Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams recommended that more attention be paid on the categorization of issues concerning the subject of the case and the contented norms, which will help the justices. He also advised that the petitum be revised following the standardized format.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo advised the Petitioners to simplify the petition and remove inessential explanations, as the petition will be read not only by the justices, but also the public at large. “Convey the petition in a simple and understandable manner, and retain its spirit and message,” he said.

He also advised them to clarify the unconstitutionality of the norms, whether it is an issue of implementation or not. He also asked them to elaborate on the legal impacts as a consequence of the petition being granted by the Court.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra highlighted the Petitioners’ request of formal review. He asked that they give concrete explanation of the drafting of the law and the formal violations occurring in its stages. “For example, the formal violations and public participation. Then explain other laws that can be used as touchstones and the rules of conduct of its drafting process,” he said.

Justice Saldi then informed the Petitioners that they were given no later than 14 workdays to revise the petition and submit it by Wednesday, May 4, 2021 at 10:00 WIB to the Registrar’s Office. 

Writer: Sri Pujianti
Editor: Nur R.
PR: Tiara Agustina
Translator: Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 4/22/2021 22:02 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.

---