Page 35 - e-KLIPING KETENAGAKERJAAN 19 NOVEMBER 2020

Is this error just a small mistake that has no serious impact on the implementation of the law?
Maybe. However, it should be noted carefully that the formulation of Article 6 of the law does
not fulfill one of the elements of the Principles for the Formation of Good Legislative Procedures
as stipulated in Article 5 of Law No. 12/2011 on legislation making, namely the principle of clarity
of formulation.

Can the noncompliance of these principles be overlooked in the implementation stage? The
answer must be returned to the noble ideals of the Job Creation Law, namely regulatory review
as an effort to clarify a rule and not the other way around.

Even if there is a practical way, which is called the distribution mechanism II — something that
has been in place and practiced when the government responds to inaccurate preparation of
legal documents such as laws — a wrong revision mechanism is certainly not a good lesson for
the public.

Basically, the government must refer back to the procedure of submitting revisions of a law by
meeting the criteria of “certain circumstances” as stipulated in Article 23 (2) of Law No. 15/2019,
which amends Law No. 12/2011.

However, if the mechanism for submitting a revised bill based on Law No.15/2019 is also deemed
to have not resolved the fundamental problems behind the discussion, ratification and
promulgation of the Job Creation Law, such as the principle of openness, then filing a judicial
review motion with the Constitutional Court is a necessity for the relevant parties to test their
arguments.

Therefore, there are several things that need to be considered when the Job Creation Law is
challenged at the court. First, petitioners should not only be limited to citizens whose
constitutional rights have potentially been harmed, but also political parties whose aspirations or
interests were ignored during the deliberation of the job creation bill. The combination of political
parties and civil society as petitioners will reflect the strengthening of legal consciousness, which
is part of the legal culture.
Second, legitimate mobilization of all resources is an option that the petitioners can consider. It
will be interesting to observe, however, whether the mobilization is initiated by the elite or civil
society. Another important element in this mechanism are the masses, which can accelerate the
mobilization.
Finally, President Jokowi has called on parties who are dissatisfied with the Job Creation Law to
file a judicial review motion. The President’s choice of the dispute resolution through the
Constitutional Court constitutes the judicialization of politics. This is a form of expanding the role
of the judiciary and the judges’ power in adjudicating a public policy. In another sense, the
judiciary and the panel of judges are deeply involved in reshaping policies and entering into
controversial political vortices.

Through its power, the court’s final decision is a form of justification or dejustification of
government policy, in this case the Job Creation Law. The court will conduct an abstract, rather
than concrete, review of the law.

Concerning the involvement of the Constitutional Court in the polemic surrounding the Job
Creation Law, judicial behavior of the judges will matter. Based on the political jurisprudence,
although the Constitutional Court is an independent institution, the behavior of its judges cannot
be separated from their professional responsibility to the public, certain ideological views or
political ideas, closeness to political elites, and strategic considerations of the cases they face. It
is not surprising that the perspective of political jurisprudence is defined by the vision of the
judiciary as political agencies and judges as political actors.

34