Muhammad Hafidz (Petitioner) at the ruling hearing for the judicial review of Law No. 2 of 2004 on Industrial Relations Disputes Settlement, Thursday (2/29/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.
JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) granted part of the material judicial review petition of Law No. 2 of 2004 on Industrial Relations Disputes Settlement (PPHI Law) by Muhammad Hafidz. The ruling hearing for Decision No. 94/PUU-XXI/2023 took place on Thursday, February 29, 2024 in the plenary courtroom with Chief Justice Suhartoyo and the other eight constitutional justices presiding.
“[The Court] adjudicated; grants the Petitioner’s petition in part; declares Article 82 of Law No. 2 of 2004 on Industrial Relations Disputes Settlement (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia of 2004 No. 6, Supplement to State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia No. 4356) unconstitutional and not legally binding if not interpreted as ‘The petition which is filed by the worker/laborer against layoff may only be submitted within the grace period of 1 (one) year after the decision of the employer is received or informed,’” said Chief Justice Suhartoyo reading out the verdict.
In its legal considerations, delivered by Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih, the Court stated that the deletion of Article 171 of Law No. 13 of 2003 on Manpower in Article 81 point 63 of Law No. 6 of 2023 on the Stipulation of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 2 of 2022 on Job Creation into Law served to eliminate provisions on the grace period of layoff lawsuit in two laws: Law No. 13 of 2003 on Manpower and Law No. 2 of 2004 on PPHI, so that the authors of Law No. 6 of 2023 removed the substance of Article 171 of Law No. 13 of 2003 in Article 81 point 63 of Law No. 6 of 2023, which also regulates the period for filing a layoff lawsuit. Workers/laborers may file a lawsuit to an industrial relations dispute settlement institution within a maximum of 1 (one) year from the date of termination of their employment.
“The removal of Article 171 of Law No. 13 of 2003, the legal basis for filing a layoff lawsuit to the industrial relations court only exists in Article 82 of Law No. 2 of 2004. However, the removal of Article 171 of Law No. 13 of 2003 does not automatically make the deadline for filing a layoff lawsuit entirely null and void. This is in line with the President’s testimony delivered at the hearing on November 27, 2023 that the removal of Article 171 of Law No. 13 of 2003 was not meant to entirely invalidate the deadline for filing a layoff lawsuit to the industrial relations court, but to prevent dual provisions on [the matter],” said Justice Enny.
Based on its legal considerations, Justice Enny added, the Court upheld its stance that the deadline for filing a layoff lawsuit is necessary to balance the interests of employers and workers/laborers as well as the sake of fair legal certainty so that problems between employers and workers/laborers do not drag on because they can be resolved within a clear and definite period of time.
As such, in order to ensure legal certainty as stipulated in Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, since there are no other provisions on the deadline for filing a layoff lawsuit to the industrial relations court, the Constitutional Court asserted in the decision that Article 82 of Law No. 2 of 2004—which reads “The petition on layoff lawsuit that is filed by the worker/laborer as meant in Article 159 and Article 171 of Law No. 13 of 2003 on Manpower may only be submitted within the grace period of 1 (one) year after the decision of the employer is received or informed”—is unconstitutional and not legally binding if not interpreted as “The petition on layoff lawsuit that is filed by the worker/laborer may only be submitted within the grace period of 1 (one) year after the decision of the employer is received or informed.”
“Therefore, the a quo petition is granted not as the Petitioner requested, so the Petitioner’s petition is legally grounded in part,” Justice Enny stated.
Legislatures to Review PPHI Law
The Court also stated that based on its legal considerations, since Law No. 2 of 2004 is related to several manpower laws, especially Law No. 13 of 2003 and Law No. 6 of 2023, as well as several Constitutional Court decisions, in order to create harmony among laws and to follow up on several Constitutional Court decisions, the legislatures should immediately review Law No. 2 of 2004. This is in line with the intent of Article 95A of Law No. 13 of 2022 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 12 of 2011 on Lawmaking.
The results of said review would be used to propose amendment to Law No. 2 of 2004 in the national legislative program (Prolegnas). This emphasis is necessary, in line with the testimony by the House of Representatives (DPR) on January 30, 2024 on page 13—which stated that “the bill on the amendment to Law No. 2 of 2004 has entered the national legislative program since the 2015-2019 period, and also in the 2020-2024 national legislative program long list in the DPR’s proposal. However, until today, [it] has not been made a priority and thus has not been discussed by the relevant apparatus.”
Court Fees
Meanwhile, in one of his petitums, the Petitioner requested that the phrase “the decision of the Industrial Relations Court” in Article 97 of Law No. 2 of 2004 be 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” since decisions of industrial relations dispute lawsuits rarely mention the party who should pay the court fee if the court grants the entire or part of the lawsuit or the advance court fee.
This issue, the Court asserted, is not within its jurisdiction. The advance court fee that the plaintiff pays is used to finance the case settlement process, not a non-tax state revenue. In addition, any remaining cost is returned to the plaintiff.
Therefore, it is irrelevant to involve other parties in the matter. Not to mention, the fee that the plaintiff pays will be covered by the payment made by the defendant as long as it is emphasized in the ruling and its implementation cannot be separated after the execution of the decision. Moreover, the issue is a matter of implementation of norms. As such, the Court maintained that the Petitioner’s argument that the phrase “the decision of the Industrial Relations Court” in Article 97 of Law No. 2 of 2004 is 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” was legally groundless.
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
Case on Legal Uncertainty of Industrial Relations Disputes Case Fees Continues
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.”
At the preliminary hearing on Wednesday, September 6, 2023, 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.
Thursday, February 29, 2024 | 18:49 WIB 205