Advisor for the Coordinating Ministry for Economic Affairs Elen Setiadi testifying on behalf of the Government at the judicial review hearing of the Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 2 of 2022 on Job Creation, Thursday (3/9/2023). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.
Thursday, March 9, 2023 | 16:31 WIB
JAKARTA (MKRI) — The government regulation in lieu of law (perppu) format was chosen so that the state would not have to deal with red tape in finishing the Job Creation Law, which was predicted to take seventeen years. This would have direct impact on the evaluation of investment potential; thus, the format was the step to mitigate the impact of global uncertainty since it promotes household consumption, the creation of employment opportunities, the reinforcement of the financial sector, and the improvement of financial authority.
The statement was made by advisor for Regulation, Law Enforcement, and Economic Resilience of the Coordinating Ministry for Economic Affairs Elen Setiadi at a judicial review hearing of cases No. No. 5/PUU-XIX/2023 and No. 6/PUU-XIX/2023 on the Government Regulation in Lieu of Law (Perppu) No. 2 of 2022 on Job Creation on Thursday, March 9, 2023.
The petition No. 5/PUU-XIX/2023 was filed by health law lecturer Hasrul Buamona, Migrant Care administrator Siti Badriyah, legal consultant Harseto Setyadi Rajah, entrepreneur Jati Puji Santoro, law students of Sahid University Jakarta Syaloom Mega G. Matitaputty and Ananda Luthfia Rahmadhani, Wenda Yunaldi, Muhammad Saleh, and the Singaperbangsa Trade Union Federation’s (FSPS) as Petitioners I-IX. The petition No. 6/PUU-XIX/2023 was filed by the Confederation of All Indonesian Labor Unions (KSBSI). The session had been scheduled to hear the President/Government’s statement.
He said that various regulations in the Job Creation Law had accelerated Indonesia’s economic recovery post-COVID-19 pandemic, so it has been proven to provide benefits for domestic investment. It cannot be denied that the vulnerability of the global economy has an impact on the national economy, including the economic recession in 2023. Government policy is considered to be a solution for this situation. However, the prohibition against creating strategic policies based on Constitutional Court Decision No. 91/PUU-XVII/2020 has created uncertainty and urgency in overcoming the negative impact of the global economy.
The perppu was a mitigation step for the impact of the global economy since there were correlating investment and consumption. Increased investment would promote more work opportunities, thus increasing income, which in turn would lead to increasing consumption, which would drive more demands of goods and services, thus promoting investment.
“In order to mitigate the Indonesian economy after the Job Creation Law, the vulnerability of the global economy which impacted national economy, responsive and anticipatory steps needed to be taken to overcome the impact of the global crisis. Therefore, the President needed to enact a perppu,” Elen explained at the fourth hearing for this petition.
Furthermore, the compelling urgency of issuing a perppu is the president’s subjective assessment based on objective circumstances, including the need for laws that are very urgent to resolve state of affairs. Based on this, the President had the right to enact the perppu, which is a privilege for the President. The perppu, he said, would only be valid for a short time until it is revoked or made into a law.
“The compelling urgency of this Job Creation Perppu has been met, including the need to resolve legal problems quickly and based on law,” said Elen in person at the plenary courtroom before Chief Justice Anwar Usman and the other eight constitutional justices.
Some of the constitutional justices had questions after the Government’s testimony. Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo asked when the perppu was issued. “The perppu was issued during the House’s session or not? This relates to the counting of the first hearing. Is there a situational characteristic to every judicial review petition in the Court? Do not build the perception [that the case is inadmissible due to formal defects. In the correspondence between the President and the House, was the perppu approved?” he asked.
Next, Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra asked for more elaboration and the Government’s additional testimony on the time gap between the issuance of the perppu, whether it was 13-14 months or more than a year, within the two-year grace period that the Court gave for the Job Creation Law. “Therefore, in this testimony there was not any explanation of what happened within a year after the pronouncement of Decision No. 91/PUU-XVII/2020 until the issuance of the perppu. Was there any effort to respond to the Court’s decision by preparing to revise the [Job Creation] Law? There should be a complete explanation of what happened in the Government, with evidence, if necessary,” he said.
Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice M. Guntur Hamzah requested additional explanation of the Government’s statement that a perppu is the president’s prerogative and will be objective with the House’s approval. “There should be [evidence in the form of] discussions between the President and relevant minister, so that he could use this subjective right, for example meetings between the minister and the President,” he said.
Then, Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams requested an explanation of the lawmaking stages from planning to promulgation, while the perppu bypassed the planning stage due to compelling urgency. “So, the Government should explain crucial undeniable aspects of the perppu and the law, whose lawmaking processes differ. There should be additional explanation why the planning was not done,” he said.
Next, Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat requested the Government’s explanation on the anticipation against global developments, which could not wait for the two-year period that the Court ordered. “Please explain whether there was a study that explains that if it had been carried out following the Lawmaking Law, the president’s constitutional authority to make the perppu was necessary,” he said.
Before concluding the hearing, Chief Justice Anwar Usman announced that the hearing would resume on Monday, March 27, 2023 at 11:00 to hear the House’s testimony.
Govt Regulation in Lieu of Law on Job Creation Deemed Not Having Urgency
Court Examines Revisions to Two Petitions on Job Creation Law
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.
Meanwhile, the Petitioner of case No. 6/PUU-XIX/2023 argues that 55 articles in the perppu are 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.
Author : Sri Pujianti
Editor : Nur R.
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Translation uploaded on 3/10/2023 22:41 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.