Tuesday, May 4, 2021 | 14:36 WIB
The Petitioners’ attorney conveying the revisions to the petition virtually at the judicial review hearing of Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation, Tuesday (4/5/2021). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.
JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) held the second judicial review hearing of Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation on Tuesday, May 4, 2021. The case No. No. 5/PUU-XIX/2020 was filed by Putu Bagus Dian Rendragraha and Simon Petrus Simbolon (Petitioners I-II), two persons with disabilities. 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.
The Petitioners’ attorney Eliadi Hulu conveyed the revision points, one of them being the Petitioners’ wish to withdraw the request for formal judicial review in order to focus on the material judicial review.
“We would like to withdraw [the request] in order to focus on the rights for people with disabilities in the revised a quo law. Therefore, we would like to focus on the material judicial review because many members of the community have petitioned for formal judicial review. However, we remain supportive of the endeavor,” he said before Constitutional Justices Saldi Isra (panel chair), Wahiduddin Adams, and Suhartoyo.
In addition, the Petitioners added the background to the petition, in the form of a comparative table illustrating the articles before and after being amended through the Job Creation Law. They believe the revised articles do not accommodate people with disabilities in the construction of buildings.
“So, in this [revised petition], we focus on four things in relation to the norms in the Job Creation Law that we challenge: [provisions] regarding buildings, hospitals, manpower, and traffic,” Hulu said.
At the preliminary hearing, the Petitioners claimed to have lost special treatment and easy access to buildings due to the enactment of Article 24 point 24 of the a quo law, which had annulled Article 27 of Law No. 28 of 2002 on Buildings; Article 61 point 7 of the a quo law, which had revised Article 29 paragraph (1) letter l of Law No. 44 of 2009 on Hospitals; Article 81 point 15 of the a quo law, which had annulled Article 59 paragraph (1) of Law No. 13 of 2003 on Manpower; 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.”
They believe the norms are in violation of Article 27 paragraph (2), Article 28D paragraphs (1) and (2), Article 28G paragraph (2), Article 28H paragraph (2), and Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. Many buildings don’t provide facilities and easy access to individuals with disabilities like them.
Writer : Sri Pujianti
PR : Tiara Agustina
Editor : Nur R.
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Translation uploaded on 5/4/2021 15:39 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.