House Commission III member Supriansa testifying virtually at the judicial review hearing of the Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 2 of 2022 on Job Creation, Monday (3/27/2022). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held the fifth judicial review hearing of cases 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 Monday, March 27, 2023. House of Representatives (DPR) Commission III member Supriansa testified to the House’s approval of the bill that the President/Government proposed.

The lawmaking procedure for the ratification of a law and a perppu (government regulation in lieu of law) is the same as per Article 52 of the Lawmaking Law (P3 Law). The House only has the authority to approve or disapprove of the proposal of perppu or law by the president. Any further discussion, he said, would be needed as per Articles 65 through 70 of the Lawmaking Law, which regulates the mechanism for the first- and second-level discussions.

Given that the discussion of any perppu should involve the public, which is required as per the Constitutional Court Decision No. 91/PUU-XVIII/2020, the House must announce these discussions to the public.

“Since this mechanism took time, the article that requires the House to approve or disapprove could not be implemented. This also happened during the ratification of a perppu in 2009. So, on January 9, 2023, the House received the President’s letter that stated that the Bill of Perppu No. 2 of 2022, based on Article 50 paragraph (3) of the Lawmaking Law that gives a 60-day deadline, the House carried out several work meetings with the legislation body and the DPD on February 14-15, 2023. On February 14, the appointment for discussing this perppu bill was based on the opinion of faction leaders and the House organs, so the House did a consultation meeting in place of a deliberation meeting and ratified the bill into law,” Supriansa said before Chief Justice Anwar Usman, Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra, and the other seven constitutional justices.

Joint Agreement

Supriansa added that the Government and the House had had a work meeting to discuss the perppu bill and as a follow-up to the Constitutional Court’s decision. It was agreed that a special taskforce be formed. The requirement for meaningful public participation was met through the fulfillment of the right to be listened, to have their opinions considered, and to have explanation/response. Then, on February 15, another meeting between the House and the Government took place for the first-level discussion. As a result, the Job Creation bill was made into a law to approve and forward to the plenary session. In short, at the meeting, seven factions approved it while two rejected the ratification.

In the third session period in 2022/2023 of the House, which ended in February 16, the second-level discussion in the plenary session on the stipulation of the perppu bill into law went on to the next period so that the House could listen to the public. Next, on March 14, 2023, the fourth session period of /2023 of the House began with the agenda to approve the results of the second-stage meeting, and the ratification of the perppu bill was set for March 21, 2023.

“Then, on March 21, plenary session for the second-level discussion took place. Seven factions approved, while two rejected the enactment of the Job Creation Perppu. Then, the Government had the authority to promulgate it. The House believed that since on March 21 the perppu had been approved to be a law, the petition is irrelevant as it has lost its object,” Supriansa said.

Why Perppu, Not Law

Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams responded by asking questions and requested more information. In the last few years, two perppus had been issued—No. 1 of 2020 on COVID-19 and No. 2 of 2022 on Job Creation. He asked why both did not get approved in the earlier House sessions with the limit of the first-level discussion.

“And then [the House] agreed that the perppus be brought to the plenary sessions, not through joint agreement. Factually, on March 21, 2023, the House approved the stipulation of the perppu into a law. So, can you explain why in the last 30 years no perppu that came later had been prioritized than the first perppu? So that the new normal impression is clear. How could this happen? This needs more explanation,” he said.

He also asked the Government about the time it started planning, ordering, or thinking of the follow-up of the Constitutional Court decision in relation to the ratification of the perppu by annulling the Job Creation Law. “Since the Court’s decision on the application of the Job Creation Law, the Government intensely prepared a bill on the Court’s order, so I request more information on how long the perppu was prepared. Law No. 12 of 2011 and the Presidential Regulation No. 87 of 2014 regulate that the formation [of a perppu] is the same of that of a law. [The Government] may provide administrative evidence and witness testimonies as additional evidence that [the plan] had since [the Court’s decision] so [the bill] did not become a law but a perppu,” he asked the President/Government’s proxy.

Characteristics of Perppu

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh asked the House for more information on the characteristics of the Job Creation Perppu so that it could be prioritized in the discussion sessions, given that the House had stated that by the stipulation of the Job Creation Perppu, the judicial review petition in the Court had lost its object. The Court, he said, would need information on the perppu that is not stipulated into law.

“If [the case] loses object, when [the perppu] is approved to become a law, should the Court base it on the plenary session for the perppu? Or should it wait until the [new] perppu is stipulated into law once more?” he asked the House.

Before concluding the session, Chief Justice Anwar Usman informed the litigants that the next hearing would take place on Thursday, April 6 at 11:00 WIB to hear the experts for Petitioner of case No.  6/PUU-XXI/2023.

Also read:

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

Court Examines Revisions to Two Petitions on Job Creation Law

Govt: Job Creation Perppu Mitigating Global Economic Impact

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. They 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.

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. It 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.
PR            : Tiara Agustina
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

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.

---