The Petitioners’ legal counsels Putu Bravo Timothy and Franditya Utomo explaining the merit of the case virtually at the preliminary hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation, Wednesday (1/5/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

---

Thursday, January 6, 2022 | 09:26 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The preliminary judicial review hearing of Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation was held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Wednesday, January 5, 2022. The petition for case No. 64/PUU-XIX/2021 was filed by the Indonesian Veterinary Medical Association (PDHI), Jeck Ruben Simatupang, Dwi Retno Bayu Pramono, Deddy Fachruddin Kurniawan, Oky Yosianto Christiawan, and Desyanna (Petitioner I-VI).

To the bench led by Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul, the Petitioners’ legal counsel Putu Bravo Timothy conveyed their request for the material judicial review of Article 34 point 16 paragraph (2) and Article 34 point 17 paragraph (1) of the Job Creation Law on the amendment to Article 69 paragraph (2) and Article 72 paragraph (1) of Law No. 18 of 2009 on Husbandry and Animal Health (PKH Law).

He explained that Petitioner I is a private legal entity, a professional association that represents and serves the interests of the veterinary profession/veterinarian in the country and has a commitment to strive for excellence in their profession and for animal preservation and ecosystem preservation (humans, animals, plants, environment). Petitioners I-VI are Indonesian citizens, veterinarians, and veterinarian service users.

Petitioners II-VI believe their constitutional right to livelihood and decent living would be harmed as the amendment to the PKH Law in the Job Creation Law has led to a shift where anyone who offers health services and are previously required to have a business license is now required to meet requirements for a business license.

“Although the shift might seem simple, it proves to be a barrier and violates the constitutional rights of Petitioners II-V, who are stakeholders referred to in Article 34 point 16 paragraph (2) of Law No. 11 of 2020,” Putu explained.

The Petitioners, who represent veterinarians and veterinarian service users, would not be able to have work and decent living due to the enactment of Article 34 point 16 paragraph (2) and Article 34 point 17 paragraph (1) of the Job Creation Law when the ‘business license’ means requirements that are against the notion of “ease in the process of applying for a business license” and/or Article 27 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution as the philosophical basis for the Job Creation Law.

The phrase ‘business license’ in question is risk-based, with the consequence that business licensing for the husbandry and animal health subsector would be categorized as UMKM/MSMEs and/or big businesses, while that for the agriculture and animal health subsector would be categorized as small businesses. As such, ‘anyone who offers health services’ and ‘animal health workers who provide animal health services’ must have business capital of over one billion rupiah to start and/or continue their business.

Justices’ Advice 

Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul emphasized that the most important thing to take into account is the elaboration of the Petitioners’ profiles, the Court’s jurisdiction, legal standing, the background of the petition or posita, and the petitum or what is requested.

“It must be clear in a petition. No introduction section is necessary in a judicial review petition,” he said.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams said that, aside from elaborating the Petitioners’ legal standing, the petition must include the statute of the private legal entity, which states its administrators and who may represent it in/out of court.

“Secondly, there are the words ‘primary’ and ‘subsidiary’ in the petitum. They are unnecessary. You not only state ‘not legally binding.’ There is no statement that the articles requested for review are unconstitutional. In order to state them unconstitutional, there must be a statement that they go against the 1945 Constitution,” he explained.

Lastly, Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh highlighted the elaboration of the Court’s jurisdiction. “Are you referring to the latest Constitutional Court Law? [It seems that] it still refers to the old law, please review it. Secondly, the latest [Constitutional Court Regulation/PMK] on the procedure for judicial review, PMK No. 2 of 2021. The format of the petition is regulated in Article 10 of said PMK,” he said.

He also observed the PDHI. “What is its highest forum in the statute? Is it a congress, a [national meeting], or what? Do elaborate the highest decision-makers of the Indonesian Veterinary Medical Association,” he asked.

Writer        : Nano Tresna Arfana
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Raisa Ayuditha
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 01/07/2022 12:05 WIB

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian versions, the Indonesian version will prevail.

---