Supporting the Constitutional Court Decision Regarding the Job Creation Law
By : Samuel Christian Galal )*
The Constitutional Court (MK) on Monday (2/10) decided that Law (UU) Number 6 of 2023 concerning the Determination of Perppu Number 2 of 2022 concerning Job Creation (Ciptaker) as a Law does not violate the provisions of statutory formation. The public also supports this decision, so it is hoped that this can end the polemic regarding this matter.
The public fully supports the Constitutional Court which has officially announced the Job Creation Law, which considers that this policy does not violate the mandate of the constitution at all, and in fact all the petitions submitted by the applicant, namely workers, are considered no longer relevant.
As is known, the Constitutional Court has ultimately decided that Law Number 6 of 2023 concerning the Stipulation of Government Regulations in Lieu of Law (Perppu) Number 2 of 2022 concerning Ciptaker as a new Law or provision, does not violate the provisions of statutory formation at all.
This was decided by the Constitutional Court in a decision reading session which was attended by 9 (nine) constitutional judges on Monday, October 2 2023. The Chairman of the Constitutional Court, Anwar Usman, emphasized when reading out the verdict in case number 54/PUU-XXI/2023 that the Constitutional Court rejected the petition from the applicant in its entirety.
So, with this rejection, the workers’ lawsuit was officially rejected and the Constitutional Court decided that the Job Creation Perppu was not at all formally flawed. In these considerations, the panel of judges considered that the arguments put forward by the applicants were completely groundless according to the law.
It was stated that first, the applicant argued that the enactment of the Government Regulation Perppu on Job Creation into law by the House of Representatives of the Republic of Indonesia (DPR RI) violated the constitution because it was carried out during the fourth session, even though the Perppu was signed by the President of the Republic of Indonesia (RI), Joko Widodo ( Jokowi) during the second trial period.
From this first argument, the Constitutional Court considers it natural that the DPR needs a long time to officially enact a series of Perppu into a law, because the Job Creation Perppu itself is omnibus in nature, which includes up to 78 cross-sectoral laws.
Then the panel of judges also considered that parliament in this case had not wasted any time at all in reviewing the Perppu since receiving the President’s letter, so that the accusations, lawsuits or arguments put forward by the workers were considered wrong.
The second argument is that the applicant, consisting of workers, considers that the issuance of the Perppu does not fulfill the element of compelling urgency. However, it is clear that the argument of the lawsuit submitted by the workers is also considered to be incorrect because the Constitutional Court agrees with the argument from the Indonesian Government presented at the trial, that the Job Creation Perppu is indeed urgent and it is very important that it be signed as soon as possible in order to anticipate possible turmoil. of the global economic uncertainty that is currently occurring and sweeping the world.
For information, the emergency referred to is in the form of a global crisis which of course has great potential and has a very significant impact on the economy in Tanag Air, as a result of the geopolitical situation which is still uncertain at this moment due to many things, one of which is the conflict between Russia and Ukraine and the post-economic crisis situation that occurred due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
In fact, the debate regarding the compelling urgency is completely irrelevant if it is still being proposed because the matter has actually been discussed when the parliament, in this case the DPR RI, has approved the adoption of the Job Creation Perppu as law officially some time ago. ago. So there has been discussion about the debate regarding whether the stipulation of the Job Creation Perppu is urgent or not, and a decision has been taken to ensure that the regulation is indeed urgent so that it can be ratified as soon as possible.
The third argument put forward by the workers concerns the absence of meaningful participation from the public in the formation of this law. Then the Constitutional Court also firmly considered that the lawsuit submitted was completely groundless according to the law.
Of course, this is not without reason, the article actually means that public participation cannot be imposed on a law whose nature is to establish a Perppu, because the existence of a Government Regulation in Lieu of Law requires a quick time to be promulgated as soon as possible due to a compelling emergency which has already been thoroughly discussed. previously.
Then, the final result is, by considering all the legal considerations that have been put forward, including the arguments for the lawsuit submitted by the applicant, namely the workers, the Constitutional Court (MK) itself is of the opinion that the entire process of forming Law Number 6 of 2023 This formally does not conflict with the 1945 Constitution at all.
Therefore, because the formation of the Job Creation Law does not conflict with the constitution at all, it is officially stipulated that this policy has binding legal force. Thus, all the arguments put forward by the applicant are completely groundless according to law.
)* the writer is an analyst at the Gala Indomedia Institute