Court Separates Formal Review, Delays Material Review of Job Creation Law
Image

Chief Justice Anwar Usman delivering a decree on the separation of the formal review and the postponement of the material judicial review the Stipulation of the Job Creation Perppu into Law, Wednesday (6/21/2023). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.


JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) decreed the separation of the formal 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 and delay the material judicial review hearing on the Law.

The Decree No. 40/PUU-XXI/2023 was delivered on Wednesday, June 21, 2023 in the plenary courtroom. The petition was filed by 121 petitioners, consisting of ten workers’ unions and 111 individuals.

At the hearing, Chief Justice Anwar Usman said the Court had issued the Decree of the Chief Justice on the formation of a justice panel No. 40/PUU/TAP.MK/Panel/04/2023, dated April 11.

Separation of Cases

Following Article 34 of the Constitutional Court Law, the Court had held a panel preliminary hearing on the case on May 9, where the justices advised the Petitioners to separate the formal and material review. However, the revised petition remained with both the formal and material review combined, which was clarified at a hearing on May 22.

“With regard to this combining, based on Constitutional Court Decision No. 79/PUU-XVII/2019, read out at an open plenary hearing on May 4, 2021, the Court ruled, ‘… and can separate the examination process of the formal and material review if the petitioner combine both reviews in one petition,” the chief justice said.

Deadline

In Decision No. 25/PUU-XX/2022, the Court declared the deadline for a formal review to last 60 days since the president and/or the House testifies at a plenary examination hearing. For substantially complex cases, Chief Justice Anwar said, the formal and material reviews must be separated and the material review be postponed, since the judgment of the constitutionality of laws materially is dependent on whether or not the formal petition is proven.

“Based on the justice deliberation meeting on June 6, 2023, the Court decided to separate the formal and material reviews for case No. 40/PUU-XXI/2023 and delay the material review until the decision on the formal review is delivered,” he emphasized. 

Before concluding the hearing, Justice Anwar said that the next hearing would take place on Thursday, July 6 at 11:00 WIB to hear the House and the President/Government. 

Also read:

Hundreds of Workers Allege Job Creation Law Facilitates Layoff  

Hundreds of Workers Affirm Arguments for Case on Job Creation Law 

On Tuesday, May 9, the Court held the preliminary hearing for the case. Among the 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); and others.

They allege that the Job Creation Law is 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.

The Petitioners also allege that 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 loss of job. They allege that the Law has harmed many workers because its implementation facilitates layoffs.

In general, changes in manpower as regulated in the articles of the Job Creation Law have degraded state protections for workers, which was previously regulated appropriately in Law No. 31 of 2003 on Manpower.

“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,” said legal counsel Mustiyah.

She argued that the Constitutional Court through Decision No. 91/PUU-XVIII/2020 had 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,” Mustiyah said.  

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.


Wednesday, June 21, 2023 | 15:25 WIB 275