The constitutional justices entering the courtroom for the judicial review hearing of Law No. 13 of 2003 on Manpower, Wednesday (9/212021) to hear the House and the president. Photo by Humas MK/Ilham W. M.

---

Wednesday, September 21, 2022 | 15:59 WIB

JAKARTA (MKRI)—The definitions of businessperson and employer based on Law No. 13 of 2003 on Manpower in a work relation regulates the relations between an businessperson and a worker/laborer based on a work agreement that has the elements of job, payment, and order. The legislature did not regulate work relations broadly as the Petitioners argued.

The statement was made by House Commission III member Supriansa at a judicial review hearing of the Manpower Law on Wednesday, September 21, 2022 in response to the case No. 75/PUU-XX/2022, where the Petitioners argued that there had been overlapping or ambiguous definitions of businessperson and employer in the Manpower in the context of work relations.

“If the [word] ‘businessperson’ in work relations is expanded, it will impact the law and the entire content of the a quo law, and could change the structure of the a quo law and make it not in accordance with lawmaking guidelines. Thus, it is not inaccurate that there has been legal ambiguity and overlap between the terms or definitions of employer in Article 1 point 4 of the Manpower Law and entrepreneur in Article 1 point 5 of the a quo law,” Supriansa explained before Chief Justice Anwar Usman and the other constitutional justices.

Also read: Five Homeworkers Challenge Manpower Law

Guarantee of Manpower System

Supriansa also responded to the Petitioners’ argument of the limitation of work relations in Article 1 point 15 and Article 50 of the Manpower Law, which has allegedly created legal uncertainty for homeworkers in a work relation. He conveyed the House’s view that it limits the scope of work relations between workers/laborers and businesspersons to ensure the orderly system of labor regulation.

He asserted the House’s view that the politics of labor law when the Manpower Law had been drafted was regulated in such a way as to provide basic rights and protection for workers and to create conducive conditions for the development of business. Manpower development is related not only to workers during, before, and after the work period, but also to the employer, the Government, and the community.

“Therefore, a comprehensive regulation is needed, including on the development of human resources, improvement of productivity and competitiveness of Indonesian workers, expansion of job opportunities, employment placement services, and fostering industrial relations,” he said.

In response to the Petitioners’ argument that there is no legal basis or regulation governing homeworkers and that the Petitioners cannot be categorized as workers in a work relation according to Article 1 point 15 and Article 50 of the Manpower Law, the House believes that manpower development has many dimensions and is related to existing and developing business sectors in society. The interests of the workforce during, before, and after the work period are also the interests of employers, the Government, and the community.

Also read: Five Homeworkers Challenge Manpower Law

No Legal Ambiguity

Meanwhile, Indah Anggoro Putri, the Manpower Ministry’s Director-General of Industrial Relations Development and Labor Social Security (PHI-JSK), testified on behalf of the Government on the definitions of businessperson and employer in Article 1 point 4 and Article 1 point 5 of the Manpower Law.

“The Petitioners erred and did not carefully understand the definitions of businessperson and employer. The employer referred to in the Manpower Law can be grouped into two: one who is not a businessperson and one who is. When the employer is not be a businessperson, the relationship formed [with them] is not employment, so their rights and obligations are not fully subject to the provisions of the Manpower Law. Meanwhile, for an employer that is a businessperson, the legal relationship formed is employment. Therefore, their rights and obligations are subject to the provisions of the Manpower Law. Thus, there is no legal ambiguity and overlap between the terms or definitions of businessperson and employer in the Manpower Law in the context of employment,” she said.

The Government also refuted the Petitioners’ argument that Article 1 point 15 and Article 50 of the Manpower Law contradicts Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. They asserted that, in fact, the provisions provide recognition, guarantee, protection, and legal certainty for the Petitioners as homeworkers.

“Therefore, there is absolutely no loss of constitutional rights on the part of the Petitioners. The Government deem it correct for the panel of justices of the Constitutional Court to reject the Petitioners’ petition,” she emphasized.

Also read: Homeworkers Revise Petition Against Manpower Law

Five homeworkers—Muhayati, Een Sunarsih, and Dewiyah (Petitioners I-III) from Jakarta and Kurniyah and Sumini (Petitioners IV-V) from Cirebon—filed a material judicial review petition to challenge Article 50 of Law No. 13 of 2003 on Manpowerconveyed their petition revisions. The Petitioners of case No. 75/PUU-XX/2022 are not employed by companies but receive orders of goods/services from intermediaries. In 2017, the Petitioners had an audience with the Ministry of Manpower to question protection for homeworkers as employees and their work relations based on the Manpower Law but the Ministry said the term “homeworkers” was not recognized in the Law.

They believe homeworkers can be categorized as workers following the definition of workers in the Law, but they were considered not having work relations. However, the Ministry of Manpower believed that the characteristics of homeworkers did not meet the requirements for workers within work relations as referred to in Article 1 point 15 of the Manpower Law. Therefore, they believe the Manpower Law has not provided legal protection to homeworkers.

Therefore, in the petitum, the Petitioners requested that the Court grant the entire petition and nullify Article 1 point 15 of the Manpower Law 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” and Article 50 if not interpreted to mean “Work relations occurs due to work/employment agreement between the employer and the worker/laborer.”

Writer        : Nano Tresna Arfana
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : M. Halim
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 10/12/2022 08:52 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.

---