Petitioner Muhammad Hafidz conveying the revisions to the petition at a judicial review hearing of the Law on Industrial Relations Dispute Settlement (PPHI), Wednesday (9/20/2023). Photo by MKRI/Fauzan.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held the petition revision hearing for the material judicial review of Law No. 2 of 2004 on Industrial Relations Disputes Settlement (PPHI Law) on Wednesday, September 20, 2023. The case number 94/PUU-XXI/2023 was filed by Muhammad Hafidz, who challenges Article 82 and the phrase “the decision of the Industrial Relations Court” in Article 97 of the PPHI Law.

On the on-site hearing chaired by Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul, without a legal counsel, the Petitioner submitted a revised petition based on the advice of the panel at the previous hearing. He explained that the pages in the petition had increased from 16 pages to 27 pages due to changes to the legal standing and reasons for the petition.

“So, there is no revision to the Constitutional Court’s authority and the petitum... In the legal standing section, [I] made improvements to the narrative in number four and added a description that the petition is not hindered by the principle ne bis in idem,” the Petitioner explained.

He emphasized that the improvement was to strengthen the argumentation of his legal standing. He also said that for the background of the petition, he had made pointers.

“In the previous petition, [I] used a table. [I] have changed it to letter pointers as sub-chapters. There are two, sub-chapter a and sub-chapter b,” he explained.

Also read: Private Employee Questions Employment Lawsuit Court Fees

Article 82 of the PPHI Law reads, “The petition which is filed by the worker/laborer as meant in Article 159 and Article 171 of Law Number 13 of 2003 concerning Manpower may only be submitted within the grace period of 1 (one) year after the decision of the employer is received or informed.”

Article 97 of the PPHI reads, “The obligations that should be carried out and/or the rights that should be received by the parties or by one of the parties on each settlement of the industrial relations dispute are determined in the decision of the Industrial Relations Court.”

The Petitioner explained that the one-year grace period for termination of employment (PHK) lawsuits as stipulated in Article 82 of the PPHI Law is for the reasons referred to in Article 159 and Article 171 of Law No. 13 of 2003 on Manpower.

The Petitioner, who was present without legal counsels, explained his legal standing and constitutional loss. “As a worker who is still actively working in a private company, I have been harmed by the enactment of the material content in Article 82 and Article 97 of Law No. 2 of 2004,” he said.

He asserted that as a private employee, he may experience constitutional loss due to termination for reasons as referred to in Article 82 of the PPHI Law. He could also be potentially deprived of his constitutional rights by the enactment of Article 97 of the PPHI Law while trying to obtain a refund of case fees for a tenure of approximately 9 years with salaries amounting to Rp25,403,800 per month. Thus, if he took into account the compensation for termination of employment for his tenure and salaries, he would be entitled to severance pay and service pay amounting to Rp330,249,400.

Employment Lawsuit Fees

The Petitioner argued that the provisions of Article 58 of the PPHI Law states that the process of litigation in the Industrial Relations Court is not subject to fees as long as the cost is under Rp150,000,000. If the Petitioner wishes to file an employment termination dispute lawsuit to the Industrial Relations Court with a value of severance pay and service pay amounting to Rp330,249,400, he will be charged a case fee, the amount of which has been determined by the Court as an advance court fee.

After paying for the advance court fee, the Industrial Relations Court handed down a verdict to grant the Petitioner’s request and ordered the employer to give the Petitioner his rights. The employer, who lost the case, had to pay for the court fee since the compensation amounted to over Rp150.000.000. The employer implemented the Industrial Relations Court’s decision, which had permanent legal force, but only paid for the Petitioner’s compensation for the employment termination, but objected to the court fee, which the Petitioner had previously paid for as an advance court fee. As such, the Petitioner had lost the money he paid for as an advance court fee when filing the lawsuit.

Thus, if the Petitioner exercises his right to file a dispute over termination of employment to the Industrial Relations Court and pays the court fee, then the lawsuit is granted, the Petitioner, who is in the position of the Claimant, will lose the court fee that has been paid at the time the lawsuit is registered because the obligations that must be carried out as stipulated in the Industrial Relations Court decision do not mention the party who receives the payment of the court fee.

Therefore, in the petitum, the Petitioner requested that the Court declare Article 82 of the PPHI Law unconstitutional and not legally binding and the phrase “the decision of the Industrial Relations Court” in Article 97 of the PPHI Law unconstitutional if not interpreted as “the decision of the Industrial Relations Court, aside from inflicting punishment to the obligation of paying the court fee, shall determine the other party who receive the payment of the court fee to compensate for the advance court fee.”

Author       : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Tiara Agustina
Translator  : Tahlitha Laela/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.

---