Constitutional justices entering the courtroom for the judicial review hearing of the Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 2 of 2022 on Job Creation for case No 14/PUU-XXI/2023, Tuesday (2/14/2023). Photo by MKRI/Ilham W. M.
Tuesday, February 14, 2023 | 15:55 WIB
JAKARTA (MKRI) — Issued on December 30, 2022, the Government Regulation in Lieu of Law (Perppu) No. 2 of 2022 on Job Creation was formally challenged in the Constitutional Court (MK). Thirteen workers unions filed the petition No. 14/PUU-XXI/2023, alleging the perppu legally flawed for not meeting lawmaking requirements. The preliminary hearing for the case was chaired by Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams on Tuesday, February 14, 2023 in the plenary courtroom.
The unions were Federasi Kesatuan Serikat Pekerja Nasional (Petitioner I), Federasi Serikat Pekerja Farmasi dan Kesehatan KSPSI (Petitioner II), Federasi Serikat Pekerja Kimia Energi dan Pertambangan KSPSI (Petitioner III), Federasi Serikat Pekerja Logam, Elektronik, dan Mesin SPSI (Petitioner IV), Federasi Serikat Pekerja Pariwisata dan Ekonomi KSPSI (Petitioner V), Federasi Serikat Pekerja Listrik Tanah Air (Pelita) Mandiri of West Kalimantan (Petitioner VI), Federasi Serikat Pekerja Pertanian dan Perkebunan (Petitioner VII), Federasi Serikat Pekerja Rakyat Indonesia (Petitioner VIII), Gabungan Serikat Buruh Indonesia (Petitioner IX), Konfederasi Buruh Merdeka Indonesia (Petitioner X), Konfederasi Serikat Pekerja Seluruh Indonesia (Petitioner XI), Persaudaraan Pekerja Muslim Indonesia (Petitioner XII), Serikat Buruh Sejahtera Independen ’92 (Petitioner XIII).
Legal counsel Muhamad Raziv Barokah asserted that the Petitioners believe the Job Creation Perppu had not met the lawmaking provision of Article 22A of the 1945 Constitution. They alleged it a means to revive Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation, which the Court had declared conditionally unconstitutional in Decision No. 91/PUU-XVIII/2020. The Job Creation Law was part of an omnibus law consisting of eleven clusters, among which serves to simplify land permits, investment requirements, manpower, provide ease and protection for MSMEs (UMKM), allow ease of business, support research and innovation, facilitate administration, facilitate sanctions, support land control, provide ease to government projects, and to manage Special Economic Zones (KEK).
Meanwhile, the Job Creation Perppu comprises eleven combined clusters of 78 laws, such as Staatsblad of 1926 No. 226 juncto Staatsblad of 1940 No. 450 on Public Disturbance Law (Hinderordonnantie), Law No. 2 of 1981 on Legal Metrology, Law No. 32 of 1982 on Company Registration Mandate, Law No. 6 of 1973 on General Provisions of Taxation, Law No. 17 of 2019 on Water Resources, and Law No. 22 of 2019 on Sustainable Agricultural Systems.
“In essence, the formation (of the Job Creation Perppu) did not follow the provision relating to compelling crisis situation based on Article 22 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, since there were blatant and real violations that the public is aware of. It is even not only formally defective, but also materially problematic,” Raziv at the hearing presided over by Constitutional Justices Wahiduddin Adams (panel chair), Manahan M. P. Sitompul, and Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh.
Legal counsel Caisa Aamuliadiga asserted that the Petitioners did not mean to say that the President could not issue a perppu to implement the Court’s ruling. In a serious and real compelling crisis situation, for the nation’s interest and to safe the state, a perppu may be issued to comply with the Constitutional Court’s decision.
“Non-compliance to the Constitutional Court’s decision is a bad precedent by the President and set an example that Constitutional Court decisions may be disregarded. If this is left to go on, this bad precedent may reoccur when the state’s situation is declared in crisis, without any intention to safe the nation and state, a president may issue a perppu that will annul the Constitutional Court’s decision,” she said on site from the Court’s main building.
Therefore, in the petitum, the Petitioners requested that the justices declare the Job Creation Perppu not meeting lawmaking provisions based on the 1945 Constitution, unconstitutional, and not legally binding.
Justices’ Advice
Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul asked the Petitioners to show their organizations’ articles of association that show who have the right to represent them in and out of court. He also advised them to elaborate their legal standing, especially in the formal petition, by explaining the direct relations to the norm being petitioned. “The formal petition concerns the deadline, which has not been mentioned. Mention this in the part on the Court’s jurisdiction,” he said.
Meanwhile, Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh reminded the Petitioners about the deadline for a formal petition, which is 45 days since the norm was passed. He also requested that they explain the unconstitutionality of the perppu.
Next, Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams highlighted the Petitioners’ elaboration of legal standing, which was mostly on their concerns of the norm. Meanwhile, they are requesting a formal review. “So, pay close attention to the crucial aspect of the formation of this norm, not the issues surrounding it, whether the formation of the perppu has violated the Petitioners’ rights, what are those rights? Explain these well,” he said.
Before concluding the hearing, Justice Wahiduddin Adams announced that the revision to the petition should be received by the Registrar’s Office by Monday, February 27, 2023 at 13:30 WIB.
Writer : Sri Pujianti
Editor : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR : Andhini S. F.
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Translation uploaded on 2/15/2023 14:31 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.
Tuesday, February 14, 2023 | 15:55 WIB 271