Law and Human Rights Ministry’s Director-General of Legislation Asep N. Mulyana testifying on behalf of the Government at the formal judicial review hearing of Law No. 6 of 2023 on the Job Creation Law, Monday (7/17/2023). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.
JAKARTA (MKRI) — Another 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 for case No. 54/PUU-XXI/2023 took place on Monday, July 17, 2023 to hear the House of Representatives (DPR) and the Government. The case was filed by fifteen workers’ unions or federations.
At the hearing presided over by Chief Justice Anwar Usman and the other eight constitutional justices, House Commission III member Supriansa stressed the Petitioners did not have legal standing in the case and appealed the Court to determine this based on the Petitioners’ constitutional impairment.
“The House leaves it entirely to the Court to reconsider and assess whether the Petitioners have legal standing in the formal judicial review of the a quo Law,” he said on behalf of the House.
He further explained that Article 22 of paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution stipulates that any government regulation requires the House’s approval at the following session. The provisions gave the House the authority whether to approve the president’s proposed perppu at the following session. If the House gives that approval, it will be followed by an approval of its stipulation into a law. If not, a law will be issued to revoke the perppu.
The House believes the duration for the discussion of laws differs from that for perppu. The discussion of laws can be done within one period and there is a mechanism that allows it to continue to the following period.
Next, Law and Human Rights Ministry’s Director-General of Legislation Asep N. Mulyana testified on behalf of the President/Government. He said that the formation of the Job Creation Law had followed the procedure in Article 22 of the 1945 Constitution and Article 52 of the Lawmaking Law.
He stressed that the Petitioners’ had made an assumption of the formation of the a quo Law and equated it with the lawmaking process during the New Order. Lawmaking process in the Reform era has better constitutional basis, which emphasizes that the House has the lawmaking authority.
He believes the legislative function is firm. Meanwhile, in terms of public interest, the difference of lawmaking in the Reform era ensures the guarantee of public participation in lawmaking. The people and their representatives in the House can have intensive interaction as a result of transparent relations.
Asep also emphasized that Perppu No. 2 of 2022, which was approved by the House, has met the provisions in Article 22 of paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution and Article 1 point 4, Article 5, Article 7 paragraph (1) letter c, Article 11, Article 52, and Article 71 paragraph (1) of the Lawmaking Law and three criteria of compelling crisis situation as stated in the Constitutional Court Decision No. 138/PUU-VII/2009, paragraphs 3.5 and 3.8 through 3.13.
Also read:
Ratified During Recess, Job Creation Law Challenged Formally
Workers’ Unions Revise Formal Petition on Job Creation Law
At a preliminary hearing on Wednesday, May 31, 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.
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 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.
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 | 14:50 WIB 423