One of the Petitioners’ legal counsels reading out the subject matter at the panel preliminary hearing of the formal and material judicial review of Law No. 6 of 2023 on the Stipulation of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 2 of 2022 on Job Creation into Law, Tuesday (5/9/2023). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) holds a hearing for the formal and material judicial review of Articles 80 and 81 of Law No. 6 of 2023 on the Stipulation of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 2 of 2022 on Job Creation into Law. The hearing for case No. 40/PUU-XXI/2023 took place on Tuesday, May 9, 2023 and was presided over by Constitutional Justices Arief Hidayat, Suhartoyo, and Enny Nurbaningsih.

The petition was filed by 121 petitioners, consisting of ten workers’ unions and 111 individuals. Through legal counsel M. Fandrian Adhistianto, they alleged that the Job Creation Law was legally flawed and that the a quo articles are against Article 27 paragraph (2), Article 28C paragraph (2), and Article 28D paragraphs (1) and (2) of the 1945 Constitution.

Another legal counsel, Endang Rokhani, explained the background of the petition, such as the DPR’s (House of Representatives) approval of the stipulation of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law (Perppu) No. 2 of 2022 on Job Creation into law. The Petitioners asserted that this means the House has approved the president’s justification of the compelling crisis situation for the stipulation of the perppu.

Therefore, in reviewing the constitutionality [of said Law], the petition refers to the requirement for a compelling crisis situation in the stipulation of the Job Creation Perppu. As such, the approval of the stipulation of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 2 of 2022 on Job Creation into law, in the Petitioners’ opinion, is against Article 22 paragraphs (1) and (2) of the 1945 Constitution,” Endang said.

Layoffs

The enactment of Article 81 of the Job Creation Law has led to actual or at least potential losses in the part of the Petitioners and could lead to the loss of job. Legal counsel Mustiyah said that it essentially facilitates layoffs. In general, she added, changes in manpower as regulated in the articles of the Law had degraded state protections for workers, which was previously regulated appropriately in Law No. 31 of 2003 on Manpower. There is a contradiction between the argument for the compelling crisis situation in the manpower aspect in the President’s statement of the stipulation of the Job Creation Perppu into law, which he presented at the work meeting between the House’s Legislation Body (Baleg) and the Government on February 14, 2023.

“The degradation of legal protections for workers, which have been better regulated previously, has led to a high number of layoffs, which will in turn lead to an increase in unemployment,” Mustiyah said.

Two-Year Deadline

Mustiyah said further that the next background of the petition is that the Constitutional Court through Decision No. 91/PUU-XVIII/2020 ordered the legislatures to revise Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation within two years. They were supposed to use the impending deadline for complying with the Court’s order swiftly.

“The Constitutional Court should firmly declare the stipulation of the a quo law a form of defiance that injures the Court’s dignity. If this model was allowed, the Petitioners worry there would potentially be the weakening of the checks-and-balances function and creating public distrust in the Court because its decisions would be powerless before other state institutions,” she said.

Among the 121 Petitioners are Federasi Serikat Pekerja Kimia, Energi, dan Pertambangan Serikat Pekerja Seluruh Indonesia (FSP KEP SPSI); Persatuan Pegawai Indonesia Power (PP IP); Federasi Serikat Pekerja Indonesia (FSPI); Persaudaraan Pekerja Muslim Indonesia ’98 (PPMI ’98); Serikat Pekerja PT Perusahaan Listrik Negara (Persero) (SP PLN); Federasi Serikat Pekerja Kimia, Energi, Pertambangan, Minyak, Gas Bumi, dan Umum (FSP KEP); Serikat Pekerja PT Pembangkitan Jawa Bali (SP PJB); Federasi Serikat Pekerja Pariwisata Reformasi (FSP PAR); Federasi Serikat Pekerja Tekstil, Sandang, dan Kulit Serikat Pekerja Seluruh Indonesia (FSP TSK SPSI); and Serikat Pekerja Aqua Group (SPAG).

Some of the Petitioners are employees, such as Leksono Widodo and others from PT Unilever Indonesia, Tbk; Agun Gunawan and others from PT Tokai Dharma Indonesia; Sarono and others from PT Pearl Star International; Edi Susanto and others from PT Multistrada Arah Sarana Tbk.; Edi Supriyanto and others from PT NOK Indonesia; Taryono and others from PT Bridgestone Tire Indonesia Bekasi; Taufik Rahman PS and others from PT Muliaglass Safety; as well as several employees of PT Mulia Keramik Indah Raya, PT South Pacific Viscose,  PT Nipsea Paint and Chemicals Plant Purwakarta, PT Cengkareng Permai, PT Indo Bharat Rayon, and PT Surya Toto Indonesia Tbk.

Justices’ Advice

Responding to the 112-page petition, Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih advised the Petitioners to observe past Constitutional Court decisions to study the standard format of petition. She also urged them to review the substance of the norms petitioned.

“Show strong evidence of the constitutionality issue of the perppu. For the legal standing, also… elaborate [how the Petitioners] meet the requirements of constitutional impairment. This elaboration is not yet seen in the formal judicial review petition, but it is in the material one,” she said.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo advised the Petitioners to exercise caution in proposing their arguments considering that the petition concerns formal and material review. If they insist on combining the two, they should focus on the articles petitioned, so they are clearly shown in the petitum.

Lastly, Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat asked the Petitioners to consider a good, meaningful petition and help the constitutional justices understand their requests. He also hoped they would divide the articles into clusters. “So that they would be easy to analyze and prove at the upcoming hearings,” he explained.

Before pounding the gavel to signal the end of the hearing, Justice Arief announced that the Petitioners had until Monday, May 22, 2023 at 14:00 WIB to revise the petition and submit it to the Registrar’s Office so that the next hearing can be scheduled. 

Author       : Sri Pujianti
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Fitri Yuliana
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.

---