Judicial review hearing of Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation on Thursday (10/6/2021) in the plenary courtroom. Photo by Humas MK/Hendy.
Thursday, June 10, 2021 | 15:16 WIB
JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) held a judicial review hearing of Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation on Thursday, June 10, 2021. The House (DPR) and the Government testified for seven cases: No. 91/PUU-XVIII/2020, 103/PUU-XVIII/2020, 105/PUU-XVIII/2020, 107/PUU-XVIII/2020, 4/PUU-XIX/2021, 5/PUU-XIX/2021, and 6/PUU-XIX/2021.
The plenary hearing was presided over by Chief Justice Anwar Usman alongside the other eight constitutional justices. Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra stated that the formal and material judicial review would be separated starting from this hearing.
“Today’s hearing and those after will only discuss the fulfillment of the formal requirements in the lawmaking process of the Job Creation Law because we are constrained by a [deadline] following the Court’s decision when ruling on the KPK Law. This formal judicial review case will be decided in no later than 60 workdays, starting from today. Therefore, this hearing could take place every week. As such, we hope today the Government testifies on the lawmaking process of the Job Creation Law starting from proposal, discussion, approval, ratification by president, and promulgation,” Justice Saldi explained.
Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat added that the Government might communicate with the Court with regard to their statement. “The evidence should be [reorganized]. The Government has informed us of the evidence starting from the Job Creation bill, but it has not been [organized] well so it cannot be approved at today’s hearing. Therefore, we request that the evidence be [reorganized],” he stressed.
Six ministers attended the hearing virtually on behalf of the Government: the Coordinating Minister for Economic Affairs Airlangga Hartarto, the Minister of Law and Human Rights Yasonna Laoly, the Minister of Manpower Ida Fauziah, the Finance Minister Sri Mulyani Indrawati, the Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources Arifin Tasrif, and the Minister of Public Works and Public Housing Muhammad Basuki Hadimuljono. Directors-general and secretaries-general of the ministries were also in attendance. Meanwhile, the House (DPR) representatives couldn’t attend as the House was also in session.
Coordinating Minister for Economic Affairs Airlangga Hartarto said on behalf of the Government that they accepted the justices’ advice. The Government, he said, believed that they would present different materials in the formal judicial review hearings.
“The materials that the Government will convey cover both formal and material judicial review because a some of the cases combine [the two]. In order to coordinate for the material judicial review, including to collect more evidence, we request Your Excellencies to give the Government a one-week delay,” Airlangga said before the justices.
Also read:
Job Creation Law Challenged by 662 Workers
Number of Petitioners of Job Creation Law Reduced
The general chairman of the Federation of Chemical, Energy, and Mine Workers Union - All-Indonesian Workers Union Indonesia R. Abdullah along with 662 other petitioners challenge Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation. The petition has the highest number of petitioners in the Court’s history.
Through their attorneys, the Petitioners filed for the formal and material judicial review of the law. In the petition, they request that the law be declared in violation of lawmaking provisions according to the 1945 Constitution and, thus, not legally binding. They also request that the Court declare the a quo norms unconstitutional or conditionally unconstitutional and that several articles in Law No. 13 of 2003 on Manpower be declared valid and legally binding.
Also read:
Job Creation Law Deemed Detrimental to People with Disabilities
Petitioners with Disabilities Strengthen Background to Petition on Job Creation Law
In petition No. 5/PUU-XIX/2021, Putu Bagus Dian Rendragraha and Simon Petrus Simbolon (Petitioners I-II), who have disabilities, 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.
They 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.”
Also read:
Federations and Industrial Workers Challenged Job Creation Law Formally
FSPMI Revises Petition on Job Creation Law
Meanwhile, the Petitioners of case No. 6/PUU-XIXI/2021, Riden Hatam Aziz and three others, assert that the Job Creation Law doesn’t have legal certainty because its lawmaking process was formally defective. They believe that the law is unconstitutional because the inclusion of its bill in the Prolegnas (National Legislative Program) didn’t follow the provisions set forth in Law No. 2 of 2011, while its formulation didn’t follow the technical and format requirements as well as the lawmaking principles set forth in Law No. 12 of 2011. The inclusion of the bill No. 11 of 2020 in the Prolegnas cannot be based on the RPJMN (National Medium-Term Development Plan) as referred to in Article 18 letter f of Law No. 2 of 2011 because the RPJMN is only for a period of five years.
Also read:
Job Creation Law Allegedly Commercializes Education
Petitioners of Job Creation Law Request Provisional Decision
Govt Unprepared to Testify in Job Creation Law Case
Petition No. 91/PUU-XVIII/2020 was filed by Hakiimi Irawan Bangkid Pamungkas, Novita Widyana, Elin Dian Sulistiyowati, Alin Septiana, and Ali Sujito (Petitioners I-V). Petitioner I worked at a company with an employment agreement made for a specified period of time (PKWT) as a technician helper. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, his employment was unilaterally terminated. He alleges that Article 81 of the Job Creation Law has eliminated the employment period of PKWT contracts, which restrict citizens from entering into employment agreement made for unspecified period of time (PKWTT) or becoming permanent employees.
Meanwhile, Petitioner II is a vocational high school student majoring in administration and office administration at SMK Negeri I Ngawi. She could potentially be employed under PKWTT with the enactment of the Job Creation Law. Petitioner III is an undergraduate student of Education Administration at Brawijaya University while Petitioner IV is an undergraduate student of Office Administration at the State University of Malang. Petitioner V is a student at the Natural Sciences Education program at Modern Ngawi Teacher Training College (STKIP).
Also read:
Court Holds Another Hearing on Job Creation Law
Petitioners of Job Creation Law Convey Revisions
The petition No. 103/PUU-XVIII/2020 was filed by Elly Rosita Silaban and Dedi Hardianto of the Confederation of All Indonesian Labor Unions (KSBSI). They filed for the formal judicial review of Chapter IV of the Job Creation Law and the material judicial review of Chapter IV Part II of the Job Creation Law, that is Article 42 paragraph (3) letter c and Article 57 paragraphs (1) and (2).
Article 42 paragraph (3) letter c reads, “Foreign workers needed by employers in the type of production activities that have halted due to emergencies, vocation, technology-based start-ups, business visits, and research for a certain period of time.” Article 57 paragraph (1) reads, “A work agreement for a specified period of time shall be made in writing and use Indonesian and Latin letters.” Article 57 paragraph (2) reads, “In the event that the work agreement for a specified period is made in Indonesian and in a foreign language, if there is any difference in interpretation between the two, the work agreement for a specified period made in Indonesian shall apply.”
Also read:
Textile Workers’ Union Federation Challenges Job Creation Law
FSP TSK-SPSI Conveys Revisions to Petition
The Petitioners of case No. 105/PUU-XVIII/2020 are the chairman of the Garment and Leather Textile Workers’ Union Federation - All-Indonesian Workers Union Indonesia (PP FSP TSK-SPSI) Roy Jinto and 12 individual petitioners. They challenge Article 81 point 1, Article 13 paragraph (1) letter c point 2, Article 14 paragraph (1) point 3, Article 37 paragraph (1) letter b point 4, Article 42 paragraph 12, Article 56 paragraph (3) and paragraph ( 4) point 13, Article 57 point 14, Article 58 paragraph (2) point 15, Article 59 point 16, Article 61 paragraph (1) letter c point 20, Article 66 paragraph 23, Article 79 paragraph (2) letter b point 24 , Article 88 point 25, Article 88A paragraph (7), Article 88B, Article 88C point 30, Article 92 point 37, Article 151 point 38, Article 151A point 42, Article 154A point 44, and Article 156 paragraph (4) letter c of the second part of Chapter IV of the Job Creation Law.
They assert that the Job Creation Law doesn’t have enough basis of academic texts and is not based on a comprehensive analysis of the changes in 79 laws, especially the second part of Chapter IV on Manpower in Law No. 13 of 2003 on Manpower, and doesn’t justify the urgency of the changes to the Manpower Law. They saw the academic texts of the Job Creation Law a mere formality.
Also read:
Deemed Unconstitutional, Job Creation Law Challenged by 15 Legal Entities
Fifteen Legal Entities Revise Job Creation Law Petition
The case No. 107/PUU-XVIII/2020 was by the Indonesian Farmers Union (SPI) and 14 other petitioners. They allege that the planning of the Job Creation Law didn’t meet the formal requirements of lawmaking and that it violates the principle of transparency. Its formulation didn’t involve the general public, instead only did a select few. Even the authenticity of the bill drafts that were disseminated to the public were uncertain.
Writer : Nano Tresna Arfana
Editor : Nur R.
PR : Fitri Yuliana, Tiara Agustina, Raisa Ayudhita
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Translation uploaded on 6/11/2021 12:27 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.
Thursday, June 10, 2021 | 15:16 WIB 402