Court Examines Revisions to Two Petitions on Job Creation Law
Image

Constitutional Justices Manahan M. P. Sitompul, Saldi Isra, and Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh opening the panel petition revision hearing of the judicial review of the Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 2 of 2022 on Job Creation, Thursday (2/2/2023). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.


Thursday, February 1, 2023 | 13:44 WIB

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held a second judicial review hearing of the Government Regulation in Lieu of Law (Perppu) No. 2 of 2022 on Job Creation on Thursday, February 1, 2023. The petition revision hearing for cases No. 5/PUU-XIX/2023 and 6/PUU-XIX/2023 was presided over by Constitutional Justices Manahan M. P. Sitompul, Saldi Isra, and Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh.

Legal counsel for Petitioners of case No. 5/PUU-XIX/2023, Viktor Santoso Tandiasa, conveyed the revisions to the petition. First, the petitioners increased from six persons (Hasrul Buamona, Siti Badriyah, Harseto Setyadi Rajah, Jati Puji Santoro, Syaloom Mega G. Matitaputty, and Ananda Luthfia Rahmadhani) to nine with the addition of Wenda Yunaldi, Muhammad Saleh, and the Singaperbangsa Trade Union Federation’s (FSPS).

Second, the Court’s jurisdiction on the case was revised and the Petitioners’ legal standing explained. The Petitioners also added a provisional petition.

“In the provisional [petition, it is stated] that materially, the Perppu No. 2 of 2022 not only concerns revision of typos, but also of amendments that do not go through legislative mechanism in the House of Representatives. This has led to serious consequences and, in order to avoid even bigger impacts, the Constitutional Court must hand down an interlocutory decision,” Tandiasa said on site from the Court alongside Petitioners Hasrul Buamona and Siti Badriyah.

At the preliminary hearing on Thursday, January 19, 2023, the Petitioners of case No. 5/PUU-XIX/2023 argued the president’s subjective prerogative to issue a perppu must be based on an objective assessment of the situation. They asserted that the perppu did not meet lawmaking requirements as the Government had used Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation to implement urgent needs for legal issues where there is no legal vacuum.

They added that based on the Constitutional Court Decision No. 91/PUU-XVII/2020, Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation was conditionally constitutional because its academic text and plans were not easily accessible, the lawmaking process was not based on clear procedure, there were changes on the substance after joint approval by the House of Representatives (DPR) and the President, and the formation was against lawmaking principles, thus formally defective.

However, the Government issued Perppu No. 2 of 2022 by not meeting the demand and verdict of Decision No. 91/PUU-XVII/2020 and not meeting Decision No. 138/PUU-VII/2009. This of course led to legal uncertainty and [the perppu’s] formation was against Article 22 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution and did not meet the requirement of an objective assessment of a compelling crisis situation. Therefore, in the provisional petition, the Petitioners requested that the Court declare the perppu postponed until a final decision is handed down.

Also read: Govt Regulation in Lieu of Law on Job Creation Deemed Not Having Urgency

Focus on Formal Petition

Meanwhile, the Petitioner of case No. 6/PUU-XIX/2023, the Confederation of All Indonesian Labor Unions (KSBSI), through legal counsel Harris Manalu, conveyed their revisions to the petition, which included those on the object of the petition, the power of attorney, the Petitioner’s legal standing, the addition of Article 3 of the Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK) No. 2 of 2021, and pieces of evidence.

The Petitioner had initially requested a formal and material review, but they now wished to focus on the formal review.

“Next, in the part on legal standing, we explained that the president and secretary-general can represent [the KSBSI] in and out of court. In this petition, we also requested that the Court consider the 45-day deadline for formal review, where the Petitioner filed the petition on January 9, 2023 while the perppu was promulgated on December 30, 2022. Thus, the Petitioner believes that the petition has grounds for being granted,” said Harris on site at the Court.

At the preliminary hearing on Thursday, January 19, the Petitioner argued that 55 articles in the perppu were unconstitutional. They believe those norms have eliminated the constitutional rights of laborers that are guaranteed in the 1945 Constitution and Law No. 13 of 2003 on Manpower. They believe there is no legal vacuum in manpower law and that Law No. 13 of 2003 and other manpower legislation are still in force.

Therefore, the Petitioners requested that the Court grant their formal petition and declare the perppu unconstitutional.

Writer        : Sri Pujianti
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Tiara Agustina
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 2/7/2023 15:19 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.


Thursday, February 02, 2023 | 13:44 WIB 198