Constitutional Justices Arief Hidayat, Wahiduddin Adams, and Manahan M. P. Sitompul at the judicial review hearing of Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation, Wednesday (18/11/2020) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The judicial review hearing of Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation was held virtually by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Wednesday, November 18, 2020. The petition No. 87/PUU-XVIII/2020 was filed by the Singaperbangsa Trade Union Federation’s (FSPS) central executive board, represented by chairman Deni Sunarya and secretary Muhammad Hafidz.

“Based on the advice of the Honorable panel of constitutional justices at the preliminary hearing on November 4, the Petitioner has made revisions, including the addition of the articles being reviewed: Article 4 letter b, Article 6, Article 81 points 13 and 18, and the elucidation to point 44 as well as the touchstone in the 1945 Constitution: Article 22A and Article 27 paragraph (2),” the Petitioner said before  the justices led by Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat at the second hearing.

The Petitioner also added Law No. 12 of 2011 on the Formation of Statutory Laws as one of the bases of the Court’s authority to rule on the a quo petition. They also elaborated on the articles being reviewed and explained Article 51 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Law in relation to Indonesian individual citizens and group thereof with a common interest. In addition, the added Article 4 letter b of the Job Creation Law, the legal basis for the provisions on employment in the Job Creation Law, to the list of articles to review. They believe the provision doesn’t provide guarantee of work, compensation, and fair and decent treatment in employment. The Petitioner also requested that the Court consider the rejection of the provisions on employment in the Job Creation Law, which is still going on through protests, as well as consider the increasing number of parties challenging the provisions.

Also read: Government’s Expert: OTT Services Already Regulated in Statutory Laws 

The petition No. 87/PUU-XVIII/2020 was filed by the Singaperbangsa Trade Union Federation’s (FSPS) central executive board, represented by chairman Deni Sunarya and secretary Muhammad Hafidz. They believe although the employment agreement made for a specified period of time (PKWT) is further regulated in government regulations, the a quo law only regulates the period, extension, and renewal of the PKWT. Therefore, the legislature’s intent for amending Article 59 of Law No. 13 of 2003 should be called into question.

They believe such amendment should only be done to provide legal certainty for the implementation of a law. Meanwhile, Article 59 of Law No. 13 of 2003 and the Constitutional Court Decision No. 7/PU-XII/2014 has clearly regulated the type, nature, period, extension, and renewal of the PKWT.

The time limit for temporary jobs guarantees protection to workers who are bound by the PKWT. Without it, employers can extend and/or renew the PKWT for unlimited times. This will lead to deviations in the implementation of the PKWT, which could lead to industrial relations disputes.

Meanwhile, Article 81 point 15 of the Job Creation Law has eliminated the provisions of Article 65 of Law No. 13 of 2003 on the requirements of jobs that employers can request to labor service providers, allowing employers to offer all types of work to labor service providers. In other words, all types of work can be outsourced. Moreover, labor service providers can enter into the PKWT with workers. As a result, workers will experience exploitation for the benefit of business, because the responsibilities of the work relationship between the employing company and the workers have been separated. This, in fact, obscures the guarantee and protection for outsourced workers.

Writer: Nano Tresna Arfana
Editor: Nur R.
PR: Muhammad Halim
Translator: Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 11/20/2020 08:15 WIB

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian version, the Indonesian version will prevail.