The preliminary hearing of Law No. 13 of 2003 on Manpower for case No. 17/PUU-XX/2022, Monday (3/7/2022). Photo by Humas MK.

---

Monday, March 7, 2022 | 20:27 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) held the judicial review hearing of Law No. 13 of 2003 on Manpower virtually on Monday afternoon, March 7, 2022. The petition for case No. 17/PUU-XX/2022 was filed by Cimahi-based freelancer Muhammad Reynaldi Ariananda Arkiang.

The Petitioner challenges Article 90 paragraph (1), Article 91 paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Manpower Law. Article 90 paragraph (1) reads, “Entrepreneurs are prohibited from paying wages lower than the minimum wages as referred to under Article 89.” Article 91 paragraph (1) reads, “The amount of wage set based on an agreement between the entrepreneur and the worker/laborer or trade/labor union must not be lower than the amount of wage set under valid statutory legislation.” Article 91 paragraph (2), reads, “In case the agreement as referred to under subsection (1) sets a wage that is lower than the one that has to be set under valid statutory legislation or runs against valid statutory legislation, the agreement shall be declared null and void by law and the entrepreneur shall be obliged to pay the worker/laborer a wage according to valid statutory legislation.”

The Petitioner believes that the a quo articles only protects workers/laborers who are employed by companies. Meanwhile, the Petitioner is not employed by any company and thus feels that his constitutional rights are impaired by the enactment of those articles.

“Article 90 paragraph (1) and Article 91 paragraphs (1) and (2) of Law No. 13 of 2003 have also impaired the Petitioner’s constitutional rights—the right to a just and civilized life and the right to be treated and seen equal by law as stipulated in the 1945 Constitution,” the Petitioner said before the panel chaired by Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo.

He also argued that he and million other workers who are not employed by businesspeople who run companies but for employers, who are individuals who do not run companies. Another type of workers is those working for households, also known as domestic workers. Employers of both types of workers are not companies.

In his petitum, the Petitioner requested that the Court declare Article 90 paragraph (1) of the Manpower Law unconstitutional and not legally binding insofar as not interpreted as “Employers are prohibited from paying wages lower than the minimum wages as referred to under Article 89;” declare Article 91 paragraph (1) unconstitutional and not legally binding insofar as not interpreted as, “The amount of wage set based on an agreement between the employer and the worker/laborer or trade/labor union must not be lower than the amount of wage set under valid statutory legislation;” declare Article 91 paragraph (1) unconstitutional and not legally binding insofar as not interpreted as, “In case the agreement as referred to under subsection (1) sets a wage that is lower than the one that has to be set under valid statutory legislation or runs against valid statutory legislation, the agreement shall be declared null and void by law and the employer shall be obliged to pay the worker/laborer a wage according to valid statutory legislation.”

Regulated in Job Creation Law

In relation to the Petitioner’s arguments, Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo explained that the articles that are being challenged are regulated in Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation. Thus, he advised that the Petitioner review those provisions in the Job Creation Law.

“The minimum wage of workers referred to in the articles being challenged is also regulated in the Job Creation Law. Please read it,” he said.

Next, Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams advised the Petitioner to challenge a full part of the law and, even better, a law that has not been challenged.

“You can read the annotation subpart in the Constitutional Court’s website, to see which laws have been challenged and those that have not. Especially the Manpower Law, its numerous, dynamic issues and aspects as it is challenged and reviewed a lot by academics and workers. [Also read the Constitutional Court decisions] on the Manpower Law,” he said.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh observed the subject in the petition. “This subject must be in sync with the posita and the petitum. [I said this] because in the petitum, Law No. 13 of 2013 is mentioned. Please note this because this will make [the petition] potentially lose an object so there is a big chance that it will not be granted,” he said.

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

Translation uploaded on 3/8/2022 10:25 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.

---