Panel petition revision hearing of the judicial review of the Industrial Relations Dispute Settlement (PPHI) Law, Monday (23/11/2020) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Gani.
JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) held the petition revision hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 2 of 2004 on the Industrial Relations Dispute Settlement (PPHI) on Monday afternoon, November 23, 2020. A legal team represented the Petitioner at the hearing.
Attorney Bernard Brando Yustisio said that the parts on the Constitutional Court’s authority and the Petitioner’s legal standing didn’t change much from the initial petition. However, the Petitioner reinforced the background to the petition, especially regarding the word “special” in Article 55, which is not based on industrial relations in Pancasila but in the 1945 Constitution. This is clearly stated in Article 1 point 16 of the Manpower Law: “An industrial relation shall be defined as a system of relations that take shape among actors in the process of producing goods and/or services, which consist of employers, workers/laborers, and the government, which is based on the values of the Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.”
“The inclusion of the values of Pancasila in the 1945 Constitution in Article 1 point 16 of the Manpower Law is a special characteristic of the settlement of industrial relations. As we know, the existing agency that settles industrial relations came from the norm on industrial relations in Pancasila,” Bernard said to the panel of justices led by Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul.
Therefore, according to the Petitioner, the norm in Article 55 of the PPHI Law should accommodate Pancasila values and protect his constitutional rights according to the 1945 Constitution. He believes the PPHI Law clearly states that there is no appeal to a higher court, and it doesn’t explicitly prohibit anyone from taking an extraordinary measure of case review.
Also read: Industrial Relations Court Hampers Judicial Review
The petition of case No. 89/PUU-XVIII/2020 was filed by company director Yok Sagita, He challenges Article 55 of the PPHI Law, which reads, “The Industrial Relations Court is a special court within the general court.” He was the director of PT Frina Lestari Nusantara from October 19, 2010 to January 4, 2017 and had been a logistics manager before appointed director on robotics in the production.
He said he had lost his constitutional right that was protected by Article 28D paragraph (1) and Article 28H paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution because he didn’t receive protection, legal certainty, and justice when the company unilaterally terminated his employment without any legal process, which is regulated in Law No. 13 of 2003 on Manpower.
Due to the enactment of Article 55 of the PPHI Law, the industrial court is interpreted as a special court that doesn’t allow extraordinary legal remedies while, on the other hand, a special court can also be interpreted as a labor court. So, the Petitioners’ constitutional rights have been violated. He cannot file for extraordinary legal remedies [in the form of] a judicial review and fight for his rights as a worker. So, the Petitioner as a justice seeker didn’t receive fair recognition, guarantee, protection, and legal certainty as referred to in Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution and didn’t receive ease and special treatment to obtain opportunities and didn’t receive equal benefits for equality and justice as referred to in Article 28H paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution
Writer: Nano Tresna Arfana
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari
PR: Annisa Lestari
Translator: Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Translation uploaded on 11/23/2020 21:38 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.