The Petitioners’ legal counsels, Alif Fachrul Rachmad and Caisa Aamuliadiga, explaining the subject matter of at the preliminary hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 6 of 2023 on Job Creation, Wednesday (5/31/2023). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.
JAKARTA (MKRI) — 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 was challenged formally at the Constitutional Court (MK) once more. This time for case No. 54/PUU-XXI/2023, fifteen workers’ unions allege that it is legally flawed and unconstitutional.
At a preliminary hearing on Wednesday, May 31, 2023. The Petitioners’ legal counsel Alif Fachrul Rachmad stated that the formation of the Job Creation Law must have complied with Law No. 12 of 2011 on Lawmaking.
“That is why in this formal petition that we filed, aside from [the Job Creation] having to refer to the 1945 Constitution, it also has to refer to the Lawmaking Law as a touchstone. Through this distinguished forum, the Petitioners filed the formal petition of the Job Creation Law against Article 22 of the 1945 Constitution and the elucidation to Article 52 paragraph (1) of the Lawmaking Law,” Alif explained.
He added that the Petitioners believe that the Job Creation Law is formally flawed because it—which was formerly the Job Creation Perppu—was ratified during a recess. The Petitioners found the legal fact that the perppu, which was the precursor to the Job Creation Law, was stipulated on December 30, 2022—during the recess period of the House of Representatives (DPR). This, they claim, is a real violation of Article 22 of the 1945 Constitution and Article 52 paragraph (1) of the Lawmaking Law.
“The main issue in this formal review is that the formation [of the Job Creation Law] did not meet the provisions of Article 22 paragraphs (2) and (3) of the 1945 Constitution, which stipulates that a perppu must have the House’s approval in the following session, otherwise it must be revoked. What ‘the following’ means, if we refer to the elucidation to Article 52 paragraph (1) of the Lawmaking Law, it explains that ‘the following’ means the first House session after the perppu is stipulated,” Alif explained before Constitutional Justices M. Guntur Hamzah (chair), Suhartoyo, and Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh.
He added that the following session after the Job Creation perppu was in effect was the third session period of 2022/2023, which started on January 10, 2023 and ended on February 16, 2023. The Petitioners believe that, following Article 22 paragraphs (2) and (3) of the 1945 Constitution in conjunction with the elucidation to Article 52 paragraph (1) of the Lawmaking Law. In the session period, the perppu did not receive the House’s approval. Only on March 21, or outside of that period, did it receive the House’s approval. As such, and as the perppu did not receive the House’s approval in the first session period, it must be annulled and not be able to receive the House’s ratification to become a law.
The time limit in Article 22 paragraphs (2) and (3) of the 1945 Constitution in conjunction with the elucidation to Article 52 paragraph (1) of the Lawmaking Law on the implementation of a perppu, Alif continued, is in line with presidential discretion in enacting it—i.e. in a compelling crisis situation, which requires that it be stipulated into a law immediately. Therefore, any claim that the perppu was still in effect thanks to the House’s approval in its plenary meeting during the fourth session period of 2023 is definitely inaccurate.
In the petition, the Petitioners also explained that the excuse of fear of global economic crisis affecting Indonesia’s economy for the issuance of the Job Creation Perppu was groundless. They also emphasized that there was no legal vacuum since existing laws could still respond to legal issues arising from it. The regulation, they added, is also a form of contempt of the Constitutional Court and a bad precedent coming from the president, which set an example that the Constitutional Court’s decisions can be disobeyed. More dangerously, not implementing the Constitutional Court’s decisions constitutes a violation of the Constitution, as it is a constitutional organ whose existence and functions are regulated in the 1945 Constitution. Such a violation is one form of “treason against the state” that allows for an impeachment. Therefore, the Petitioners requested that the Court grant the petition.
Justices’ Advice
In response to the petition, Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo said that explaining vision and mission was not enough to explain the Petitioners’ constitutional impairment and that they should explain their constitutional rights that were violated.
“The Constitutional Court must observe whether these Petitioners, who gave the legal counsels power of attorney, are the legal subjects mentioned in the statutes/bylaws and can represent the organizations’ interests in and out of court. There must also be other elements to explain constitutional impairment,” he added.
Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice M. Guntur Hamzah advised the Petitioners to strengthen and clarify their constitutional impairment due to the enactment of the Job Creation Law. “I observed that the material loss was revealed. [However], this is a formal review, so the loss in relation to the procedure must be explained since the argument is relevant for a material review but is it also relevant for a formal review as the Petitioners requested? This must be clarified,” he said.
Before concluding the hearing, Justice Guntur announced that the Petitioners had 14 workdays to revise the petition and that they were to submit it by Tuesday, June 13 at 10:00 WIB.
Author : Utami Argawati
Editor : Lulu Anjarsari P.
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.
Wednesday, May 31, 2023 | 13:34 WIB 230