Court Rules to Separate Formal and Material Review of Job Creation Law
Image

The Court ruling to separate the formal and material judicial review of Law No. 6 of 2023 on the Job Creation Law, Monday (7/17/2023). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.


JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) ruled to separate the formal and material judicial review 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 at a ruling hearing on Monday, July 17, 2023 for cases No. 58/PUU-XXI/2023, filed by Rega Felix, and No. 61/PUU-XXI/2023, filed by Leonardo Siahaan.

At the hearing, Chief Justice Anwar Usman said that cases No. 58/PUU-XXI/2023 and No. 61/PUU-XXI/2023 concern material review of a substance whose constitutionality is contingent upon its formal review, which was still being examined in the Constitutional Court. Therefore, it would be reasonable to postpone these a quo cases.

“[The Court] postpones the examination of the material judicial review of cases No. 58/PUU-XXI/2023 and No. 61/PUU-XXI/2023, orders the Constitutional Court’s chief registrar to record the postponement… in the electronic constitutional case registration book (e-BRPK),” he stressed.

He explained that the Court had decided at a justice deliberation meeting on July 5 to postpone the examination of the material review of both cases until it hands down a ruling on the formal review of those cases.

Also read:

Petitioner Questions Institution Authorized to Judge Halal Disputes

Petitioner Revises Petitums in Case on Job Creation Law

Case No. 58/PUU-XXI/2023 was filed by Rega Felix. He alleges that the mandatory halal product insurance system is subject to legal disputes such as those on the determination of halal or non-halal brand names. The Law No. 33 of 2014 on Halal Product Assurance (JPH) Law and the Job Creation Law, he argues, which led to the establishment various fatwa institutions such as the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) and the Halal Product Committee, has led to higher potential of disputes.

He believes Article 34 paragraph (2) of the JPH Law and Article 48 point 19 of the appendix to the Job Creation Law, which specifically contain amendment to Article 33 paragraph (5) of the JPH Law, and Article 48 point 20 of the appendix to the Job Creation Law, which specifically contains addition to Article 33 paragraph (1) of the JPH Law, do not explain the mechanism in the event of disputes caused by a halal fatwa issued by either the MUI or the Halal Product Committee.

Also read:

Temporary Employment Agreement in Job Creation Law Challenged

Petitioner of Temporary Employment Agreement in Job Creation Law Adds Work Experience

Meanwhile, case No. 61/PUU-XXI/2023 was filed by Leonardo Siahaan, a private employee. He explained that the a quo article generally regulates that the end of PKWT is based on two things: the end of employment term or the end of the work. He also explains that Law No. 13 of 2003 on Manpower and the Government Regulation (PP) No. 35 of 2021 on Temporary Employment Agreement, Outsourcing, Working Hours and Break Time, and Employment Termination.

He argues that the a quo article has not regulated temporary employment. Therefore, he requests that the Court declare Article 56 paragraph (3) of the Job Creation Law unconstitutional and not legally binding insofar as not interpreted as “A temporary employment agreement based on a certain period can be set for a maximum of 2 (two) years and can only be extended 1 (one) time for a maximum of 1 (one) year or 1 (one) time.”

Author       : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Nur R.
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.


Monday, July 17, 2023 | 14:25 WIB 152