Coordinating Minister for Financial Affairs Airlangga Hartarto and other ministers testifying for the Government at a judicial review hearing of the Job Creation Law on Thursday (17/6/2021) virtually. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.
Thursday, June 17, 2021 | 19:51 WIB
JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) held another judicial review hearing of Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation on Thursday, June 17, 2021. The House (DPR) and the Government testified for six cases: No. 91/PUU-XVIII/2020, 103/PUU-XVIII/2020, 105/PUU-XVIII/2020, 107/PUU-XVIII/2020, 4/PUU-XIX/2021, and 6/PUU-XIX/2021. The Petitioners assert that the Job Creation Law as an omnibus law is against the provisions and principles of lawmaking.
Legal Standing
On behalf of the House, Arteria Dahlan responded to the Petitioners’ legal standing in a formal judicial review case following the Constitutional Court Decision No. 62/PUU-XVII/2019, pronounced on May 4, 2021. In the ruling, the Court determined that the petitioner must have a direct connection to the law being petitioned.
On that note, the House held that the Petitioners do not have the legal standing in the formal judicial review of the Job Creation Law because they do not have a direct connection to the law. In addition, the law doesn’t only regulate changes to the Manpower Law, but also 77 other laws. The Petitioners must be able to elaborate on their direct connection to all of those 78 laws, the House asserted.
Next, Arteria relayed the House’s perspective of the philosophical, sociological, and juridical backgrounds of the formation of the Job Creation Law. The House asserted that it is the state’s effort to fulfill the citizens’ right to proper occupation and livelihood for humanity. It was expected to absorb as many manpower as possible amid an increasingly competitive job market and economic globalization. To support that and to solve various issues, the country needed a legal breakthrough that eases, protect, and empower cooperatives, microbusinesses, small- and medium-scale businesses; allows for an improved investment ecosystem; and accelerates national strategic projects.
Currently, many laws and regulations overlap and are not harmonious; many issues are overregulated; and lawmaking is too complex. All these prompts omnibus laws that can solve those legislation issues. Such laws have been practiced for a long time in Indonesia, but the term itself is not very popular, Arteria said.
Ten ministers also attended the hearing on behalf of the Government. They are Coordinating Minister for Economic Affairs Airlangga Hartarto, Law and Human Rights Minister Yasonna Laoly, Manpower Minister Ida Fauziah, Finance Minister Sri Mulyani Indrawati, Energy and Mineral Resources Minister Arifin Tasrif, Public Works and Public Housing Minister Muhammad Basuki Hadimuljono, Agrarian and Spatial Planning Minister/Head of the National Land Agency Sofyan A. Djalil, Environment and Forestry Minister Siti Nurbaya, Transportation Minister Budi Karya Sumadi, Coordinating Minister for Political, Legal, and Security Mahfud MD. Directors-general and secretaries-general of the ministries were also in attendance.
Airlangga Hartarto conveyed a preface statement on the six cases. He said the state is obligated to issue policies and take actions to fulfill the people’s right to proper occupation and livelihood. He also asserted that the Petitioners’ legal standing was within the Court’s purview.
The Government, he said, held that the Job Creation Law was created to give the people protection and legal certainty over their right to proper occupation and livelihood, and freedom to unite and gather as guaranteed by the 1945 Constitution.
Their activities are not restricted by the enactment of the law. Instead, the law will absorb as many manpower as possible amid an increasingly competitive job market and economic globalization. It will also improve workers’ protection and welfare. The Petitioners’ constitutional rights are not reduced, restricted, eliminated, or harmed by the enactment of the law, Airlangga said.
The Government held that the Job Creation Law was created following lawmaking procedures and allowed for public participation in its formation. It has not been easy to realize the Government’s goal to create jobs, increase employment, and improve the quality of employment for workers’ and the people’s welfare. When the a quo bill was drafted, there were many challenges against economic transformation, leading to limited creation of jobs.
Based on the Central Statistics Agency’s (BPS) date per August 2019, out of 133.56 million of productive population, 89.96 million worked full-time, 28.41 million worked part-time, 8.14 million were half-employed, while 7.05 million were unemployed. Per November 2019, 64.06% of the population has finished junior high school while only 26.69% has finished senior high school and 9.26% has finished higher education. Efforts were needed to create jobs to accommodate this.
Formal Judicial Review
The Government rejected the Petitioners’ arguments that the formation of the Job Creation Law was unconstitutional and didn’t follow lawmaking procedures. They asserted that it had gone through the lawmaking stages pursuant to Law No. 12 of 2011 on Lawmaking: planning, drafting, discussion, ratification, enactment, and publication. Therefore, the Petitioners’ arguments are disproved, groundless, and not based on law.
They also rejected the Petitioners’ arguments that the public and relevant stakeholders were left out of the formation of the law. The Government and the House involved the public throughout all of its stages. Their discussions on the formation of the law are easily accessible on their TV and YouTube channels. The Government also attended public invitations to discuss the bill.
Next, the Government rejected the Petitioners’ argument of violation of lawmaking principles in the formation of the a quo law. They asserted that its formation complied with Article 20 of the 1945 Constitution and Law No. 12 of 2011 on Lawmaking.
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:
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 Hakimi 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.
Link to the hearing on YouTube: https://youtu.be/uyXJuiO-Ctg
Also read: Govt Delays Statement for Cases on Job Creation Law
Writer : Nano Tresna Arfana
Editor : Nur R.
PR : Tiara Agustina
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Translation uploaded on 6/18/2021 19:40 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 17, 2021 | 19:51 WIB 472