The material judicial review hearing of Law No. 6 of 2023 on the Job Creation Law to hear the House, Thursday (7/13/2023). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.
JAKARTA (MKRI) — The amendment to Law No. 11 of 2020 through 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 served to harmonize existing legislation in addition to answering current legal needs in order to maintain the stability of national economy where the needs to be clear legal basis for Government policies.
The statement was made by House of Representatives (DPR) Commission III member Supriansa at the judicial review hearing of the Job Creation Law on Thursday, July 13, 2023 in the plenary courtroom. The fifth hearing presented the House for to testify for case No. 40/PUU-XXI/2023—121 petitioners, 10 workers’ unions and 111 individuals.
Supriansa revealed that the enactment of Law No. 11 of 2020 after the Constitutional Court Decision No. 91/PUU-VIII/2020 and the issuance of Perppu No. 2 of 2022 had led to uncertainty as well as disputes between business actors, workers, and the public on economic law, the business world, and investment.
“With these reasons, the compelling urgency for the issuance of Perppu No. 2 of 2022 was fulfilled. With Law No. 6 of 2023 as a legal basis that states that Perppu No. 2 of 2022 becomes a legislation by the House to avoid a legal vacuum and renewal of legal certainty considering the short validity of the presidential regulation if it is not approved by the House to become a law. The entire manpower process with the principle of checks and balances between the president and the House, especially in the event of threats as described by Mr. President until the House had two mechanisms and procedures to approve Law No. 6 of 2023,” he explained on behalf of the House virtually before Chief Justice Anwar Usman and the other constitutional justices.
Supriansa said that, as mentioned in Article 71 paragraph (1) of the Lawmaking Law, discussion of the bill on the stipulation of the perppu was carried out through the same mechanism as discussion of any bills. Discussion on the stipulation of the perppu into law was carried out through two sessions.
“It’s just that the discussion of laws in general can be carried out in one period and the discussion mechanism is to be continued in the next period. Meanwhile, the discussion of the stipulation of Perppu No. 2 of 2022 into law… resulted in the short period of discussion,” he explained.
Formation of Taskforce and Recess Period
Supriansa explained that Article 96 paragraph (1) of the Lawmaking Law states that the public has the right to provide lawmaking inputs orally and/or in writing through public hearings, work visits, dissemination, or seminars. The results of this public consultation on the a quo Law, he added, were taken into consideration in the discussion at an advanced stage of preparation until ratification into law. The House then realized it by forming a taskforce in the preparation of the Job Creation Law in order to increase meaningful community participation and ensure their right to be heard, considered, and receive explanations.
On February 14, 2023, the House also held a plenary meeting and invited academics and on February 15, the Legislative Body held a meeting for the determination of the perppu into law by asking for approval from members of the working committee. Supriansa said, entering the third hearing session, which concluded on February 16, and according to the House meetings schedule, there was not enough time to schedule a second session.
“The proposal on the ratification of this perppu will be carried out during the fourth hearing session, which started on March 14, 2023. Then after this session, the House had a recess from February 17 to March 13, 2023. During this recess the House can hear inputs from the public more fully. Then on March 14, 2023 a plenary session was held, and on March 21, 2023 another plenary session was held with 7 factions agreeing to promulgate [the perppu] and 2 factions refusing. Furthermore, the Government followed up by promulgating Perppu 2/2022 into law. The issuance of the perppu and the process of stipulating it into the Job Creation Law are contained in Article 22 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution which states ‘The government regulation shall be approved by the House of Representatives in the following session,’” Supriansa said.
Immediate Follow-up
Supriansa added that the enactment of this perppu was carried out by the House to avoid a legal vacuum and fulfill legal certainty due to the short validity period of a perppu. The House believes the process was in accordance with the principle of checks and balances between the House and the president. Therefore, it has the right to approve the perppu into law because it was in accordance with existing legal needs and public aspirations.
Also read:
Hundreds of Workers Allege Job Creation Law Facilitates Layoff
Hundreds of Workers Affirm Arguments for Case on Job Creation Law
Court Separates Formal Review, Delays Material Review of Job Creation Law
The hearing had been scheduled to hear an expert for the Petitioners, but the written testimony was not submitted following the deadline set in the Court’s procedural law. Therefore, it will be presented at the next hearing.
The hearing was held for four cases: No. 40/PUU-XXI/2023; No. 41/PUU-XXI/2023, filed by the Confederation of All Indonesian Labor Unions (KSBSI), represented by the president of its national executive council Elly Rosita Silaban and secretary-general Dedi Hardianti; No. 46/PUU-XXI/2023, filed by 14 legal entities; and No. 50/PUU-XXI/2023, filed by the Labor Party, represented by president Said Iqbal and secretary-general Ferri Nuzarli.
The petitioners of case No. 40/PUU-XXI/2023 include 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. They question the House’s approval of the stipulation of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law (Perppu) No. 2 of 2022 on Job Creation into law. They assert that this means the House has approved the president’s justification of the compelling crisis situation for the stipulation of the perppu.
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. 13 of 2003 on Manpower.
Also read:
KSBSI Challenges Stipulation of Job Creation Law
KSBSI Affirms Background of Petition against Job Creation Law
At the preliminary hearing on Wednesday, May 10, the Petitioner asserted that the subject matters of the formal judicial review petition of the Job Creation Law, which originated from Perppu No. 2 of 2022, did not meet the provisions based on the 1945 Constitution for eight reasons. Among them are that the House of Representatives’ (DPR) approval of the stipulation of the perppu into law was formally or constitutionally flawed; that the House’s session to decide on its stipulation did not meet quorum; that it is against the Constitutional Court Decision No. 91/PUU-XVIII/2020; that it did not meet the requirements for a compelling crisis situation; that it was not clear who proposed the perppu; that it did not meet the requirements for harmony between type, hierarchy, and substance; and that it did not meet the principles of clarity and transparency. Therefore, they requested that the Job Creation law be declared legally flawed and unconstitutional.
Also read:
Formation of Job Creation Law Questioned Again
Legal Entities Clarify Background of Petition against Job Creation Law
The petition No. 46/PUU-XXI/2023 was filed by 14 legal entities. At the preliminary hearing on Tuesday, May 16, the Petitioners explained that the president had stipulated the Government Regulation in Lieu of Law (Perppu) No. 2 of 2022 on Job Creation on December 30, 2022 during the House’s recess for 2022/2023, which lasted since December 16, 2022 to January 9, 2023. Then the House resumed its sessions on January 10 until February 16, 2023. The perppu should have been ratified at a plenary session no later than February 16, but it was only approved and promulgated on March 21, 2023 during the March 14 to April 13 session. So, it has been proven that the Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 2 of 2022 on Job Creation did not have the House’s approval on the first session, no later than February 16, 2023, the Petitioners allege.
Also read:
Labor Party Asks Court to Annul Job Creation Law
Labor Party Adds Evidence for Formal Petition of Job Creation Law
Govt: Formulation of Job Creation Law Following Legislation
At the preliminary hearing for case No. 50/PUU-XXI/2023 on Tuesday, May 23, the Labor Party 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.
Author : Sri Pujianti
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.
Friday, July 14, 2023 | 09:21 WIB 1278