---

Monday, May 3, 2021 | 13:56 WIB

Constitutional justices examining a petition against the Job Creation Law by the Federation of Cigarette, Tobacco, Food, and Beverage Workers - All-Indonesian Workers Union Indonesia, Monday (3/5/2021). Photo by Humas MK/Ilham.

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) held the petition revision hearing of Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation on Monday, May 3, 2021. The petition No. 3/PUU-XIX/2021 was filed by Sudarto and Yayan Supyan, the 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).

At this second hearing, the Petitioners revised the petition following the justices’ advice at the previous hearing. The Petitioners reduced the articles to review from five to two: Articles 154A and 156 of the second part of Chapter IV of Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation. They also revised the legal standing and point of petition, but didn’t elaborate it at the hearing.

Also read: FSP RTMM-SPSI Challenges Job Creation Law

At the preliminary hearing, attorney Andri requested the material judicial review of Article 59, Article 61 paragraph (1) letter c, Article 61A, Article 154A, and Article 156 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 allege that the substance of Article 59, Article 61 paragraph (1) letter c, Article 61A, Article 154A, and Article 156 of the a quo law violate 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 the a quo norms 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.

Writer        : Nano Tresna Arfana
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Raisa Ayudhita P.
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 5/3/2021 14:33 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.

---