Revision of Job Creation Law Serves to Follow Up on Court’s Ruling
Image

The Government’s expert taking oath before testifying at the formal judicial review hearing of the stipulation of the Job Creation Perppu into Law, Monday (8/14/2023). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.


JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Government Regulation in Lieu of Law (Perppu) on Job Creation was stipulated to follow up on the Constitutional Court Decision No. 91/PUU-XVIII/2020. Its elucidation states that Law No. 13 of 2022 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 12 of 2011 on Lawmaking has regulated the omnibus method in lawmaking and emphasized meaningful public participation in lawmaking.

This statement was made by Aidul Fitriciada Azhari in his testimony as an expert for the President/Government at the ninth hearing of the formal 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 in the Constitutional Court (MK) on Monday, August 14, 2023, which was held for four cases: No. 40/PUU-XXI/2023, No. 41/PUU-XXI/2023, No. 46/PUU-XXI/2023, and No. 50/PUU-XXI/2023. This hearing had been scheduled to hear the Government’s experts and witnesses.

Aidul asserted that Law No. 13 of 2022 had affirmed that forming laws as an omnibus is a definite and standardized lawmaking method. “To improve meaningful participation in the formation of laws and regulations, the Job Creation Law taskforce conducted disseminations in various regions to increase public understanding and awareness of Law No. 11 of 2020,” he explained before Chief Justice Anwar Usman and the other eight constitutional justices.

He added that typos, misquoting of articles, paragraphs, titles, numbers, chapters, or points in Law No. 11 of 2020 had been revised. “All revisions to Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation was to follow up on the Constitutional Court’s decision that ordered the legislature to improve compliance with the omnibus method and lawmaking procedure. However, based on assessment on the global economy after the Decision No. 91 of 2020, the Government made a decision to put all revisions in a perppu,” stressed the law professor of Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta (UMS).

Aidul believes that the stipulation of the Job Creation Law was not in violation of the Constitutional Court’s Decision No. 91 of 2020 with several considerations. Constitutionally, the president’s authority [to issue] a perppu based on Article 22 of the 1945 Constitution has never been revoked or changed.

“The Constitutional Court’s decision did not expressly prohibit that the revision of the Job Creation Law be stipulated in a perppu, which is the president’s authority attributed to the 1945 Constitution. The president’s consideration of a compelling crisis did not enter the considerations of Decision No. 91 of 2020 due to the change to global economy after the decision was pronounced. The follow up on the Court’s decision by the legislature faced the global economy condition, which the president believed to be in a compelling crisis and required extraordinary measure through the stipulation of the Job Creation Perppu,” Aidul stressed.

He also explained that the stipulation also mentioned the Court’s decision and included Court-mandated revisions, despite adjustments, since the formation of a perppu differs from that of an ordinary law.

Indonesia in Global Market

The Government also presented Mohamad Iksan to testify as an expert. He said the formation of the Job Creation Law as an omnibus was an important breakthrough to overcome complex laws, new and old, and constituted a structural reform.

He believes the Job Creation was a game-changer to reverse the trend in Indonesia’s industry since the 2000s. Before that, he said, Indonesia had had quite dominant positions in the global market when it comes to several commodities. However, after Law No. 13 of 2022 was in effect, Indonesia’s investment climate became non-conducive and its position in the global market was slowly replaced by other countries.

Employment Growth

The Government also presented witnesses, Tadjudin Noer and Nurhayati. Tadjudin Noer revealed that he joined six focus group discussions and delivered presentations on demography, technological transformations, etc.

He asserted that the Job Creation Law would help with employment growth. 

Also read:

Hundreds of Workers Allege Job Creation Law Facilitates Layoff  

Hundreds of Workers Affirm Arguments for Case on Job Creation Law  

The case No. 40/PUU-XXI/2023 was filed by 121 petitioners, consisting of ten workers’ unions and 111 individuals, including Federasi Serikat Pekerja Kimia, Energi, dan Pertambangan Serikat Pekerja Seluruh Indonesia (FSP KEP SPSI); Persatuan Pegawai Indonesia Power (PP IP); and Federasi Serikat Pekerja Indonesia (FSPI).

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—Serikat Petani Indonesia (SPI), Yayasan Bina Desa Sadajiwa (Bina Desa), Federasi Serikat Pekerja Pertamina Bersatu (FSPPB), Serikat Petani Kelapa Sawit (SPKS), Perkumpulan Pemantau Sawit/Perkumpulan Sawit Watch, Indonesia Human Right Comitte For Social Justice (IHCS), Indonesia For Global Justice, Yayasan Daun Bendera Nusantara, Koalisi Rakyat untuk Kedaulatan Pangan (KRKP), Aliansi Organis Indonesia (AOI), Konsorsium Pembaruan Agraria (KPA), FIAN Indonesia, Perkumpulan Lembaga Kajian dan Pendidikan Hak Ekonomi Social Budaya, and Konfederasi Kongres Serikat Buruh Indonesia.

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

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.  

Also read:

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

Govt: Formulation of Job Creation Law Following Legislation

House: Job Creation Law to Maintain National Economy’s Stability

Petitioners’ Experts: Job Creation Law Not Urgent 

Aan Eko Widiarto: Job Creation Perppu Defies Constitutional Court’s Ruling 

Petitioners’ Expert: Job Creation Law Unqualified for Omnibus Method 

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, August 14, 2023 | 15:14 WIB 295