Said Iqbal, Jazuli, and Solikhin Suprihono (Petitioner’s Witnesses) after taking their oaths at a continued hearing for judicial review of Law No. 6 of 2023 on Job Creation, Wednesday (7/17/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held another material judicial review hearing 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 on Wednesday, July 17, 2024. The case No. 168/PUU-XXI/2023 was filed by the Labor Party, the Indonesian Metal Workers Federation (FSPMI), the All-Indonesian Workers Union Confederation (KSPSI), the Indonesian Labor Union Confederation (KPBI), the Confederation of Indonesian Trade Unions (KSPI), and two individuals—Mamun and Ade Triwanto.

During the consecutive hearing, the expert presented by the Petitioner, Zainal Arifin Mochtar, said that the Job Creation Law has reduced labor rights and shown the state’s closeness to entrepreneurs.

He noticed an imbalance in the state's role, which favors entrepreneurs. According to him, it can trigger conflicts of interest and produce inadequate laws.

“Arguably, it is dangerous when the authorities are too close to entrepreneurs. Therefore, it is prone to conflicts of interest and ultimately cannot build adequate laws,” he said.

He also emphasized that economic development must involve labor as an important part. He referred to the 1945 Constitution, the Federal Constitution (RIS), and the 1950 Constitution, which require the state and government to guarantee labor rights.

“The Job Creation Law seems to undermine the labor’s rights and encourage 'economic reasons.' I think this economic reason persists because the formulation of Article 35 of the Constitution, the RIS Law, and the 1950 Constitution maintain the economy as a joint effort within the context of involving labor as an important part. And when that is eliminated, I think it becomes a predicament,” he explained.

Furthermore, he criticized Article 81, point 31 of the Job Creation Law, which uses a new paradigm in calculating the minimum wage that is not based on achieving a decent life. He also said that the Job Creation Law had negated several previous Court decisions related to labor wages, working time, and layoffs. According to him, its substance was created without adequate labor participation, resulting in many strange rules.

Labor Testimony 

At the same time, today's hearing also heard testimonies from three of the Petitioner's witnesses, namely Said Iqbal, Jazuli, and Solikhin Suprihono, explaining the negative impact of the Job Creation Law.

Said, President of the All-Indonesian Workers Union Confederation (KSPSI), stated, based on fact, that many laborers have suffered losses due to the Job Creation Law. He cited the loss of labor rights such as severance pay, leave, and a decent minimum wage. “The Job Creation Law has harmed workers by eliminating their fundamental rights,” he said. 

Furthermore, he also criticized the minimum wage formula, which he considered unfair to laborers. According to him, the formula only considers inflation, economic growth, and certain indices determined by the government without paying attention to the needs of a decent worker's life. 

“In the Job Creation Law, it has been confirmed that the minimum wage increase is based on inflation, economic growth, and certain indices. Laborers are disadvantaged due to the existence of certain indices determined by the Government. In 2020, 2021, and 2022, in fact, there is no wage increase and it is determined by the Government,” he explained.

He emphasized that in 2020, 2021, and 2022, there was no increase in the minimum wage for laborers. “It shows that the Job Creation Law has failed to protect labor rights,” he said.

Subsequently, the Petitioner's witness, Jazuli, a labor leader in East Java, emphasized that the existence of the Job Creation Law and its derivatives has resulted in many short-term contract workers and the contract being extended dozens of times for years. According to him, it differs from what was decided by the Court, which mentions time limitations and type of work.

“And what is even stranger in this law is that at any time, this contracted worker can be terminated even though the contract, for example, is 4 years, it can be terminated even though it is only 3 years because the work has finished. This has also been regulated by the Job Creation Law and its derivatives. Secondly, with this contract system, many workers are forced to work with low wages. The laborers are forced to face such conditions with low wages. Many of the contract wages are below the minimum wage,” said Jazuli.

Also read: 

Labor Party, Workers Unions Challenge 12 Clusters of Job Creation Law

Labor Party Reduces Articles, Strengthen Reasons Why Job Creation Law Unconstitutional

Govt Unprepared, Court Delays Hearing for Job Creation Law

Govt: Work Agreement and Outsourcing Provisions in Job Creation Law Protect Workers

The Petitioners challenge 12 clusters, 3 articles, and 50 norms in the Job Creation Law. The clusters include provisions on job training institutions; workers’ placement; foreign workers; non-permanent contract or work agreement for a specified time (PKWT); outsourced workers; working time; leave; minimum wages and wages; termination of employment (PHK); severance pay (UP), reimbursement of rights (UPH), and long service award money (UPMK); elimination of criminal sanctions; and social security. They believe the articles do not reflect fair legal guarantees and worker protection and, thus, contradict Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. 

Therefore, in 93 points of their petitum, the Petitioners request the Court to declare the “semicolon (;)” and the word “or” after the phrase “private job training institutions” in Article 81 point 1 of Law No. 6 of 2023 that changed and stipulated the provision of Article 13 of Law No.13 of 2003 on Manpower unconstitutional and not legally binding, so that Article 13 paragraph (1) letter b will read: “b. private job training institutions.” They also request that the Court declare Article 81 No. 3 of Law No. 6 of 2023, which amends and stipulates Article 37 paragraph (1) letter b of Law No.13 of 2003 on Manpower unconstitutional and not legally binding if not interpreted as “legal entity private worker placement institutions.”

Author : Utami Argawati
Editor : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR : Tiara Agustina
Translators : Putri Ratnasari/Yuniar Widiastuti/Rizky Kurnia Chaesario (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.

---