Justice panel chaired by Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul at the material judicial review hearing of Law No. 13 of 2003 on Manpower, Monday (8/1/2021). Photo by Humas MK/Bayu.
Monday, August 1, 2022 | 21:15 WIB
JAKARTA, Public Relations—Five homeworkers—Muhayati, Een Sunarsih, and Dewiyah (Petitioners I-III) from Jakarta and Kurniyah and Sumini (Petitioners IV-V) from Cirebon—challenged Article 1 point 15 and Article 50 of Law No. 13 of 2003 on Manpower materially on Monday, August 1, 2022. The articles regulate the definition of employment relations.
Article 1 point 15 reads, “An employment relation shall be defined as a relationship between an entrepreneur and a worker/laborer based on a work/employment agreement, which deals with aspects relating to job description, wage, and orders.” Meanwhile, Article 50 reads, “Employment relation exists because of the work agreement between the entrepreneur and the worker/laborer.”
The Petitioners for case No. 75/PUU-XX/2022 are not employed by companies but receive orders of goods/services from intermediaries. “The intermediary is an individual who receive orders from companies or individuals that receive orders from employees of job contractor companies,” said legal counsel Wilopo Husodo to the justice panel chaired by Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul.
Petitioner I has been working from home since 2004. She receives verbal work orders of baby gloves and socks from an intermediary. Meanwhile, Petitioner II, a homeworker since 2011, receives verbal work orders of fried chicken from an intermediary. Petitioner III, who has been working from home since 2006, receives verbal work orders of footwear from an intermediary, who claimed to be a factory employee, who supplies the materials. Similarly, Petitioners IV and V, homeworkers since 2012, receive verbal work orders of rattan products such as tables, chairs, and wickers from an intermediary.
In 2017, Wilopo said, the Petitioners had an audience with the Ministry of Manpower to question protection for homeworkers as employees and their work relations based on Law No. 13 of 2003 but the Ministry said the term “homeworkers” was not recognized in the Law. The Petitioners believed homeworkers can be categorized as workers following the definition of workers in Law No. 13 of 2003, but they were considered not having work relations.
“The Ministry of Manpower believed that the characteristics of homeworkers did not met the requirements for workers within work relations as referred to in Article 1 point 15 of the Manpower Law. Therefore, we believe the Manpower Law has not provided legal protection to homeworkers,” Wilopo emphasized.
Therefore, in the petitum, the Petitioners requested that the Court grant the entire petition and declare Article 1 point 15 of the Manpower Law unconstitutional and not legally binding if not interpreted to mean “An employment relation shall be defined as a relationship between an employer and a worker/laborer, which deals with aspects relating to job description, wage, and orders.” This, Wilopo stressed, is because “there was no work/employment agreement between the employer and the worker/laborer.”
Justices’ Advice
Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih advised the Petitioners to look into the procedure for filing a judicial review petition and its format, as referred to in the Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK) No. 2 of 2021.
“The format of this petition is good enough, starting from subject, [the petitioners’] profiles, the Court’s authority, [the petitioners’] legal standing, the touchstone, the posita, and the petitum. The introduction is not needed, only the posita is needed. The constitutional impairment has not been elaborated. The Petitioners’ constitutional rights that were harmed by the norm have not been elaborated either. The argument of the contradiction between the norm and the Constitution has not been made,” she explained.
Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams advised that the word “Petitioner” be changed to “Petitioners” since there are five petitioners. He also reminded them to organize the petition following PMK No. 2 of 2021, not the format of a paper. He also asked one of the seven parties, who had not signed the petition, to sign it.
Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul (panel chair) requested the Petitioners to add the latest Constitutional Court Law and PMK No. 2 of 2021 to the petition and to elaborate on the Petitioners’ profiles.
The Petitioners were given 14 workdays to revise the petition and submit it to the Registrar’s Office by Monday, August 15, 2022.
Writer : Nano Tresna Arfana
Editor : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR : M. Halim
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Translation uploaded on 8/2/2022 10:40 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.
Monday, August 01, 2022 | 21:15 WIB 278