Muhammad Hafidz, Petitioner of case No. 126/PUU-XXI/2023 at the judicial review hearing of the Constitutional Court Law, Tuesday (10/24/2023). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — Muhammad Hafidz, the Petitioner of case No. 126/PUU-XXI/2023, attended another hearing at the Constitutional Court (MK) on Tuesday, October 24, 2023. Before Constitutional Justices Wahiduddin Adams, Suhartoyo, and Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh, he read out the revisions to the petition.

He intended to challenge the entirety of Article 56 paragraph (3) of Law No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court, but at this second hearing he affirmed that the object of the petition is focused on the word “granted” in said article.

He had completed his profile and attached a letter acknowledging his work as evidence. Meanwhile, in elaborating his legal standing, he had explained a concrete case that could re-occur while filing a lawsuit to the industrial relations court.

He has also added cases where the petitioners requested compensation or rehabilitation from several courts and were granted legal standing. He also said that the law has not regulated such a legal standing as the state administrative court does.

“Therefore, in the petitum, the Petitioner requests that the Court declare the word ‘granted’ in Article 56 paragraph (3) of the Constitutional Court Law unconstitutional if not interpreted ‘if the material substance of the paragraphs, articles, and/or sections of the law which have been declared contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia leads to the loss of civil rights, dignity, or reputation, the state can be sued for compensation or rehabilitation,” the Petitioner said in the plenary courtroom.

Also read: Petitioner Challenges Absence of Time Limit for Constitutional Court’s Case Settlement

Private employee Muhammad Hafidz challenges the word “granted” in Article 56 paragraph (3) of the Constitutional Court Law, which reads, “In the event the appeal is granted favor as referred to in paragraph (2), the Constitutional Court expressly states the material substance of the paragraphs, articles, and/or sections of the law which are contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.”

At the preliminary hearing on Wednesday, October 11, he revealed that he had just filed a lawsuit to the Industrial Relations Court, which would rule over his case within one year since his employment termination. However, the Constitutional Court has not determined a time limit for the settlement of its cases not has it determined the ruling time limit for the judicial review case No. 94/PUU-XXI/2023, in which the Petitioner challenges Article 82 of Law No. 2 of 2004 on Industrial Relations Disputes Settlement (PPHI Law), which is being examined at the same time as his case in the industrial relations court.

The lack of time limit for the settlement of judicial review cases in the Constitutional Court could potentially harm his constitutional rights due to lack of legal protection for his civil rights such as compensation for termination of employment, which he believes are violated by Article 82 of Law No. 2 of 2004.

Therefore, in the petitum, he requests that the Court declare the word “granted” in Article 56 paragraph (3) of the Constitutional Court Law unconstitutional if not interpreted as “if the material substance of a paragraph, article, and/or section of a law that has been declared contrary to the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia leads to the loss of civil rights, dignity, or reputation, the state can be sued for compensation or rehabilitation.”

Also read:

Private Employee Questions Employment Lawsuit Court Fees

Private Employee Revises Petition on Employment Lawsuit Fees 

Author       : Sri Pujianti
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Muhammad Halim
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.

---