A judicial review hearing of Law No. 2 of 2004 on Industrial Relations Disputes Settlement, Wednesday (1/24/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — Article 97 of the PPHI Law, which concerns case fees as is regulated in Article 58 of the PPHI Law, is important for ensuring that decisions of the industrial relations court provide certainty on the costs charged to the parties, said the coordinator of BPJS Watch Advocacy Timboel Siregar as an expert for the Petitioner at a material judicial review hearing of Law No. 2 of 2004 on Industrial Relations Disputes Settlement (PPHI Law) on Wednesday, January 24, 2024 in the plenary courtroom.

Siregar emphasized that the fees charged to the litigating parties are commonplace to support the proceedings in the industrial relations court and the Supreme Court. However, there is uncertainty in the implementation.

“Court decisions that charge court fees to the plaintiffs, where there is a surplus, generally the plaintiff must proactively request for it, the court does not initiate. Court decisions that impose court fees on parties should be implemented in accordance with the decision and carried out transparently. If court fees are imposed on the plaintiffs or defendants, it should be ensured that the fees are paid. Court fees are part of non-tax state revenue, as stipulated in Government Regulation (PP) No. 53 of 2008 on the Types and Rates of Non-Tax State Revenue at the Supreme Court and the Judicial Bodies under it,” Siregar explained. 

With this regulation, the court is obliged to collect court fees in accordance with the court decision. Failure to do so is considered corruption of state money. 

Siregar argued that the review of Article 97 of the PPHI Law against Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution is a technical issue related to the court’s obligation to implement PP No. 53 of 2008. 

Deadline of Layoff Lawsuit

At the hearing, Siregar also explained that Law No. 13 of 2003 on Manpower and the PPHI Law regulate the material and formal law of labor issues relating to the rights and obligations of workers/laborers. These provisions must be able to provide recognition, guarantee, protection, and legal certainty for workers/laborers.

“However, in practice, there are some materials that has not fulfilled the workers/laborers’ constitutional rights, one of which is Article 82 of the PPHI Law,” he explained.

Siregar also said that the enactment of Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation and Law No. 6 of 2023 have revised several articles in the Manpower Law. The deleted provisions in the Job Creation Law include Article 158, Article 159, Article 171, and Article 162. Meanwhile, Article 160 paragraph (3) have not changed.

“Even though they were removed, Article 158 is regulated in Article 154A paragraph (1) letter g of the Job Creation Law. Article 162, which the Job Creation Law annulled, in regulated in Article 154A paragraph (1) letter l of the Job Creation Law juncto Article 36 letter l of PP No. 35 of 2021,” he stressed.

However, he continued, Articles 159 and 171, which were deleted by the Job Creation Law (in conjunction with Article 81 of the Appendix to Law No. 6 of 2023), are no longer regulated in the Job Creation Law and PP No. 35 of 2021, so the phrase “may file a lawsuit to the industrial relations dispute settlement institution within a maximum of 1 (one) year from the date of termination of employment relationship” has no legal basis anymore.

Siregar argued that by declaring Article 82 of the PPHI Law unconstitutional and not legally binding, workers/laborers would have justice, expediency, and legal certainty in filing a lawsuit to resolve industrial relations disputes.

Also read:

Private Employee Questions Employment Lawsuit Court Fees

Private Employee Revises Petition on Employment Lawsuit Fees

Govt: No Constitutionality Issue in PPHI Law

Workers Set Aside Meal Money to Cover Court Fees

In case No. 94/PUU-XXI/2023, Muhammad Hafidz challenges Article 82 and the phrase “the decision of the Industrial Relations Court” in Article 97 of the PPHI Law.

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. 

Employment Dispute 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.

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  : 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.

---