Labor Party Asks Court to Annul Job Creation Law

Said Salahudin, the Petitioner’s legal counsel, explaining the subject matter at the preliminary hearing of the formal judicial review of the judicial review hearing of the stipulation of Perppu No. 2 of 2022 on Job Creation into law, Tuesday (5/23/2023). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held a formal judicial review hearing of Law No. 6 of 2023 on the Stipulation of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law (Perppu) No. 2 of 2022 on Job Creation into Law on Tuesday, May 23, 2023. The preliminary hearing for case No. 50/PUU-XXI/2023 was filed by the Labor Party, represented by president Said Iqbal and secretary-general Ferri Nuzarli.

On site at the hearing, Said Iqbal said that from the beginning of the formation of and early discussions on the Job Creation perppu until the DPR’s (House of Representatives) discussions, the party believed that the Lawmaking Law was just a trick from the House to justify the perppu, which was later passed into the Job Creation Law. “In the process, it was proven that we were never invited even once and only based on the Lawmaking Law that had been passed earlier, they stated that the formation process of Law No. 6 of 2023, which stipulated Perppu No. 2 of 2022, was appropriate. Therefore, we workers, especially laborers and farmers, were very disadvantaged by the lawmaking mechanism because none of our ideas were accepted,” he argued.

Said revealed that there was an informal meeting with businesspeople affiliated with the Indonesian Advocates Society (IKADIN), resulting in recommendations from both parties. The results were forwarded to the Government, in this case the Manpower Minister and the Coordinating Minister for Economic Affairs. However, none of the recommendations by these parties of interest were accepted by the House or made public. The perppu was even be ratified.

Therefore, he added, the Labor Party requested that the Court annul the Job Creation Law. “We are disadvantaged by not being involved [in the lawmaking process] and even the results of discussion with IKADIN actors were disregarded,” he stressed.

Meanwhile, in the petition, the Petitioner argued that the stipulation of the Job Creation Law, which is not in line with the Constitutional Court Decision No. 91/PUU-XVIII/2020 and Article 1 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution, which stresses that Indonesia is a rule of law. The president and House’s disregard of the Court’s decision was clearly in violation of the principle of a rule of law, which dictates that all state institutions, including the legislatures, comply with and abide by the law and the Constitution, including the final and binding decision of the Constitutional Court.

The Petitioner asserted that the legislatures’ disregard of the Court’s decision was alarming. Ryan Emenaker (2013) suggested that judicial finality is a myth, or that the final and binding nature of court decisions is a mere myth. This is the proof of pseudo-constitutionalism, deficient function of checks and balances of the constitutional court against the executive and legislative. The consequences are very dire, as the rule of law, constitutional democracy, and the citizens’ constitutional rights could be forfeited. The accumulation of all this will lead to an unconstitutional dictatorship.

In the petitum, the Petitioner requested that the Court declare the formation of the Job Creation Law in violation of lawmaking provisions based on the 1945 Constitution and, thus, not legally binding.

Justices’ Advice

In response, Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih said that the petition was elaborated in order and comprehensibly. However, she asked the Petitioner to strengthen their legal standing. “What must be noted is who the Petitioner is—the Labor Party, not a federation. The entity is the Labor Party. … Please add elaboration of the direct and indirect interests of the Labor Party and the statute/bylaw to back that up,” she said.

Then, Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul advised the Petitioner to elaborate the previous perppu and the current one. He added that the petitum had followed the Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK). “Please explain the differences or matters relating to workers’ interests, whether there are things that were made laxer or strict,” he said.

Before the session was adjourned, the panel announced that the petition was to be revised and submitted to the Registrar’s Office by Monday, June 5, 2023 at 14:00 WIB.

Author       : Utami Argawati
Editor        :
Nur R.
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.

Tuesday, May 23, 2023 | 16:52 WIB 186