The action from thousands of workers this time was a historical action. Not only it coincide with the verdict reading of the judicial review of the Job Creation Law, but also the attendance of workers as members of SP PLN Group that consist of Serikat Pekerja PT Perusahaan Listrik Negara (SP PLN), Persatuan Pegawai Indonesia Power (PP IP), and Serikat Pekerja PT Pembangkitan Jawa Bali (SP PJB).
Allied in the National Prosperity Movement (Gerakan Kesejahteraan Nasional -GEKANAS), SP PLN Group is in the forefront in voicing the rejection for electricity privatization that will give a bad impact to workers and the people. This is also emphasizing that not only the manpower cluster is problematic but also other cluster, sub-cluster electricity is one among many that is also problematic.
Electricity is public needs. Basic needs for the people should be controlled by the state and being used for the greater goods. That is why when the job creation law opened up a chance for privatization, the union should fight to reject it.
These are the statement of SP PLN Chairperson M Abrar Ali when he did the oration in the action on Thursday (25/11).
“Today we take off our white and blue collar. We are the same. Because trade union task is not only protecting workers and members interest. But more than that, protecting the interest of the state and nation,” stated Abrar.
It is a state task to protect Indonesian people and its land. Making the people intelligent and advancing general public prosperity. That is why we gather today. From Aceh to Papua praying for us who are attending today’s rally. Praying for the Constitutional judges so Law Number 11 year 2020 being revoked,” he stated firmly.
During the rally, workers spreading banners with the following messages: “Because of Job Creation Law, Electricity being Privatized”. “Reject State Electricity Privatization Regardless of the Reasons. Don’t Make People’s Life Miserable”. “Stop Privatization of State Electricity. Privatization of State Electricity is Against State Constitution UUD 1945. Harming the Country and Make People Poorer”.
Meanwhile, there are some important issues within in the verdict of the Constitutional Court number 91/PUU-XVIII/2020. Firstly, stated that the creation of Job Creation Law is in against the state constitution UUD 1945 and doesn’t have a legal binding conditionally as long not interpreted as “not being repaired within the two years period since the verdict were read”.
Secondly, stated that the Job Creation Law still be in force up till an amendment on the making process within the time frame provided by the verdict.
Thirdly, ordered to the law maker to amend it for no longer than two years since the verdict being read and should there no amendment during that period, the law will be permanently un-constitutional.
Fourthly, stated that should the law maker not completed the amendment process of the law, the law or the provisions or the content regulated by the revoked law or amended by the Job Creation Law considered to be reinforced.
Fifthly, stated for put off all strategic actions/policy with a greater impact, also it is not allowed to issue new implementing regulation related to Job Creation Law.
Reacting to the ruling, the General Secretary of PPIP Andy Wijaya having an analogy, the Constitutional Court stated “the Job Creation Law is like a dangerous car, that is why it should be destroyed if within two years not being repaired”.
These are the things used by the government to legitimizing (their action) by saying, we agree that should the car hasn’t been repaired within two years then it will be destroyed. But while under repairing, the car still run and can be functioned.
The logic is that if something is dangerous, before it’s repaired, it shouldn’t be utilized. That is why the next step is to file a citizen lawsuit to the government if within two years the Job Creation Law and its implementing regulation still being enacted.
“We will sue the Minister who implement or enforce the implementing regulation and the job creation law within two years with the accusation of the act against the law. If necessary we will also drag the President as he let the minister to execute the Job Creation Law and its implementing regulation,” he stated firmly.
Gekanas Presidium Indra Munaswar stated that to avoid bigger impact on the enforcement of the law Number 11/2020 within the two years period, the Court is also stated that the enforcement of the law with a strategic nature and have a greater impact to be call off first, including the ban of issuing new implementing regulation and also it’s not allowed for the state apparatus to take a strategic policy that has a greater impact by using Law Number 11/2020 as the legal standing that formally has been ruled as conditionally un-constitutional.
Quoted from Indra, the phrase “it’s not allowed to make new implementing regulation” having two meanings.
Firstly: the phrase can be interpreted, since the law proofed to be un-constitutional (conditionally), so there shouldn’t be any new implementing regulation created based on the mandate from the Job Creation Law. By that then the implementing regulation that just issued based on the mandate from the Job Creation Law automatically nullified.
Secondly: the phrase can be interpreted that since the time when the Constitutional Court ruling being announced or stated (by the judges) then it is not allowed to issue or create new implementing regulation. While the one that already exist are still valid.
To understand the Constitutional Court ruling stating to postpone all strategic measures/policy and has a wide impact also it’s not allowed to issue new implementing regulation related to Job Creation Law, we should see the considerations taken by the court as stated in point 3.20.5 page 414 stated as follows: To avoid bigger impact for the enforcement of Law number 11/2020, for the period of two years the court stated that the enforcement of Law Number 11/2020 related to the strategic things and having a wider impact to be called off first, including that it’s not allowed to create new implementing regulation also it’s not allowed for the state administrator to take a strategic policy that will impacted greatly by using the norm or provision under the law number 11/2020 that formally has been ruled as conditionally un-constitutional
With this, it’s clear that the court doesn’t want the enforcement of Law Number 11/2020 for the next two years that will cause a greater impact. So, to avoid the problem, the court firmly stated that the enforcement of the law related to the strategic and causing a wider impact things should be call off first.
The question is: What does the court meaning when they ruled on the strategic and wider impact things? For workers, the meaning behind the strategic and wider impact things is all regulations related to wages, contract workers, outsourcing, severance, termination, foreign workers, and all regulations related to workday and leave. Including the provisions in the sub-cluster electricity that enabled electricity to be privatized.
That is why, based on the constitutional court legal considerations as stated in point number 3.20.5 and the verdict point 7th, workers demand that all employment regulations such as Government Regulation (PP) Number 34 year 2021 on The use of Foreign Workers, PP No. 35 Year 2021 on the Definite Period of Employment Relation (contract workers), Outsourcing, Work Hour and Break Time, and Employment Termination, PP No 36 Year 2021 on Wages, PP No 37 Year 2021 on The Enforcement of Job Lost Security, and PP No 25 Year 2021 on the Enforcement of Energy, and Mineral Resources should be called off on their implementation.
Not only the employment cluster and the sub-cluster electricity as mentioned above, other clusters are also need to be called off.