---

Wednesday, May 5, 2021 | 10:42 WIB

Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra chairing the petition revision hearing of the formal judicial review of Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation, Tuesday (4/5/2021) in the Plenary Courtroom. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) held the second hearing of the formal judicial review of Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation for case No. 6/PUU-XIXI/2021 on Tuesday, May 4, 2021. The petition was filed by Riden Hatam Aziz (secretary-general of the Indonesian Metal Workers Federation/FSPMI), Suparno (chairman of the Bekasi chapter of FSPMI’s Automotive Machinery and Component Workers Union), Fathan Almadani (a contract worker at PT Indonesia Epson Industry, Cikarang), and Yanto Sulistianto (a permanent employee at PT Mahiza Karya Mandiri, Tangerang) (Petitioners I-IV).

Also read: Federations and Industrial Workers Challenged Job Creation Law Formally

Attorney Said Salahudin said at this petition revision hearing that the legal standing of Petitioner I Riden Hatam Aziz was revised to reflect the result of the federation’s congress.

“At this revised petition, Petitioner I is the president of FSPMI. The official [appointment] letter will be submitted and enclosed as evidence,” Said said before Constitutional Justices Saldi Isra (panel chair), Wahiduddin Adams, and Suhartoyo.

The Petitioners also added an explanation regarding the interest requirement of the law being petitioned, which affected the technical format of the law. At the preliminary hearing, the Petitioners claimed that the formulation of the a quo law violated Article 1 paragraph (3) and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. They claimed it didn’t meet the technical and format requirements as stipulated in the elucidation to Article 5 letter f of the Law on Lawmaking (PPP), which requires that there must be clarity in diction, terms, and legal language when formulating laws so as to avoid multiple interpretations.

They also said that the lawmaking process must be transparent and open so that the public will have the opportunity to provide inputs. Meanwhile, in drafting the a quo law, the Government closed the access to the bill. Their secretive sentiment made it seem as if the law’s academic texts and bill were confidential documents that must be kept out of the reach of the public. As a consequence, the public couldn’t access the bill and provide their inputs. 

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

Translation uploaded on 5/5/2021 17:24 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.

---