1. INTRODUCTION
    Behind its aim to accelerate economic growth through increasing investment and job creation, the Law Number 6 of 2023 on Job Creation (Job Creation Law) has sparked significant controversy, particularly among workers and labor unions concerned about their rights. Critics argue that this policy has the potential to reduce protections for labor rights and ease termination of employment, thereby increasing job insecurity and vulnerability among workers. This concern has driven various parties to file judicial reviews with the Constitutional Court, hoping to restore or balance the worker rights perceived to be at risk under this law.On October 31, 2024, the Constitutional Court issued Decision Number 168/PUU-XXI/2023 that partially granted the request for a judicial review of Job Creation Law. This request was submitted by the Labor Party along with several labor federations, such as the Federation of Metal Workers of Indonesia, the Confederation of All Indonesia Trade Unions, the Confederation of Indonesian Trade Union Unity, and the Confederation of Indonesian Trade Unions,1 who argued that several provisions in the Job Creation Law are in conflict with the 1945 Constitution. In its decision, Constitutional Court approved the judicial review of 21 (twenty-one) norms in the Job Creation Law that were deemed problematic from a constitutional perspective. This decision addresses 7 (seven) main issues, including the employment of foreign workers without permits, fixed-term employment agreements, outsourcing, leave rights, wage provisions, severance pay regulations, and termination of employment.This decision by the Constitutional Court not only addresses the request from the Labor Party but also reaffirms the importance of protecting workers’ rights within the legal system and constitution of Indonesia. By partially granting this request, the Court demonstrates its commitment to balancing investment interests with the protection of labor rights. Through an analytical approach, this article aims to provide a deeper understanding of the position of Constitutional Court Decision Number 168/PUU-XXI/2023 within the context of Indonesian law, as well as its implications for law enforcement and the protection of labor rights in the future.
  2. DISCUSSION
    1. Key Points of the Constitutional Court Decision and its Implications
      As previously mentioned, in the Constitutional Court’s decision approving 21 provisions of the Job Creation Law deemed constitutionally problematic, the decision primarily addresses 7 (seven) key issues, which are detailed as follows:2

      1. Prioritizing Indonesian Labor
        Previously, the term “Central Government” in Article 42 paragraph (1) of Law No. 13 of 2003 on Manpower (Manpower Law), as amended in Article 81 of Job Creation Law, was not defined in Article 1 of the General Provisions of Manpower Law. According to the Constitutional Court, this lack of clarity has created legal uncertainty. Therefore, in the Constitutional Court’s decision, “Central Government” must be interpreted as the authority granted to the Indonesian Minister of Manpower to approve the Foreign Workers Utilization Plan.

        Additionally, the provision in Article 42 paragraph (4) of Manpower Law as amended in Article 81 point 4 of Job Creation Law, previously stipulated that “Foreign Workers may be employed in Indonesia only in certain positions for a specific period and must have the competencies required for the position.” lacked clear and specific criteria for employing foreign workers. To prevent potential misuse in implementation, the Constitutional Court added a sentence at the end of the article, which now reads: “Foreign Workers may only work in Indonesia in employment relationships for certain positions and specific periods, and they must have the appropriate competencies for the role, with priority given to Indonesian workers.” Thus, it is essential to emphasize that employing foreign workers should be based on clear, measurable needs and must not reduce job opportunities for Indonesian workers.3
      2. Provisions related to Fixed-Term Employment Agreements
        Previously, Article 59 paragraph (4) of Manpower Law stipulated that a Fixed-Term Employment Agreement based on a specific period of time may be made for a maximum of 2 (two) years and may only be extended 1 (one) time with a maximum period of 1 (one) year. Thus, according to the Manpower Law, the total duration of Fixed-Term Employment Agreement cannot exceed 3 (three) years.4 However, Article 56 paragraph (3) of the Manpower Law as amended in Article 81 number 12 of the Job Creation Law states that the period or completion of a particular job is determined based on the Work Agreement. According to the judge’s consideration, since the position of workers in work agreements is often not equal to that of employers, this provision has the potential to lead to unilateral changes by employers regarding the term of Fixed-Term Employment Agreement, which can be detrimental to workers and is not in accordance with the principle of justice.5
      3. Outsourcing
        The amendment to Article 64 paragraph (2) of the Manpower Law as amended in Article 81 point 18 of Job Creation Law previously granted authority solely to the “Government” to determine which parts of work could be outsourced. However, the term “parts of work” itself lacked a clear and specific legal basis regarding which types of jobs that could be transferred through outsourcing. To prevent issues in its implementation, the term “Government” is clarified to refer to the Indonesian Minister of Manpower, who has the authority to specify the types and fields of work that can be outsourced to other companies based on a written outsourcing agreement. This regulation provides greater clarity regarding the types of jobs eligible for outsourcing, helping to prevent misunderstandings in job transfers and reducing the risk of legal disputes between companies and employees or workers.6
      4. Workers’ Rest and Leave Rights

        1. Weekly Rest
          Previously, Article 81 point 25 of Job Creation Law, which amended the provisions of Article 79 paragraph (2) letter b of Manpower Law, only accommodated a weekly rest of 1 (one) day for 6 (six) working days, but did not accommodate the rights of workers/laborers who work in companies that apply 5 (five) working days a week with 2 (two) days of rest. However, Article 22 of Government Regulation Number 35 of 2021 on Fixed-Term Employment Agreements, Outsourcing, Working Time and Rest Time, and Termination of Employment (Government Regulation 35/2021) as the implementing regulation of Article 79 of the Manpower Law as amended in Article 81 point 25 of Job Creation Law regulates a weekly rest of 2 (two) days for 5 (five) working days. This arrangement clearly creates legal uncertainty, especially since Government Regulations are supposed to be formed to implement the law properly so that they cannot expand the norms.7In response, the Constitutional Court clarified the new provision to ensure legal clarity and certainty by specifying that weekly rest days, which consists of two options below:

          • One day of rest for a six-day work week, or
          • Two days of rest for a five-day work week.
        2. Long Rest
          Previously, Article 79 paragraph (5) of the Manpower Law which is amended in Article 81 point 25 of Job Creation Law stipulated, “In addition to rest periods and leave as referred to in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), certain companies may provide extended leave, as stipulated in the Employment Agreement, Company Regulations, or Collective Labor Agreement.” According to the court’s considerations, the use of the term “may” cause uncertainty for certain companies to provide the long rest in question and allowed for differing policies among companies regarding long rest rights.8 Therefore, the Constitutional Court, in its decision, removed the word “may”, thereby requiring certain companies to provide long rest in accordance with the Employment Agreement, Company Regulations, or Collective Labor Agreement.

      5. Wage Arrangements
        1. Involvement of the Regional Wage Council
          Previously, Article 88 paragraph (2) of the Manpower Law as amended in Article 81 point 27 of Job Creation Law stipulated that wage policy would be determined solely by the central government, without specifying a role for regional wage councils. Meanwhile, Article 98 paragraph (1) of the Manpower Law as amended in Article 81 point 39 of Job Creation Law stipulates that wage councils, including regional government representatives, are involved in formulating wage policy. To provide clarity and certainty in wage policy determination, the Constitutional Court emphasized the importance of involving regional wage councils, including regional government representatives, as part of the wage policy formulation process that will serve as a foundation for the central government’s decisions.

        2. Proportional Wage Structure and Scale
          The phrase “proportionate” was originally specified in Article 88, paragraph (3) point (i) of Manpower Law, but in Article 81 point 27 of Job Creation Law, this term was removed from wage policy provisions. However, the Constitutional Court found that this removal was inconsistent with the effort to ensure the right to work and a decent living as guaranteed by Article 27 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. Therefore, this Constitutional Court Decision reinstates the term “proportionate” in the wording of Article 88, paragraph (3)(b) of the Manpower Law as amended in Article 81 point 27 of Job Creation Law, so that it now reads “a proportionate wage structure and scale.”

        3. Sectoral Minimum Wage
          With the removal of provisions regarding sectoral minimum wages in Article 88C in Article 81 point 28 of Job Creation Law, the Constitutional Court noted a potential decline in protection standards and inequity for workers in certain sectors.9 Therefore, based on the Constitutional Court’s considerations, the regulation in Article 88C in Article 81 point 28 of Law No. 6 of 2023 was amended to require that Governors set sectoral minimum wages at the provincial level, with the option to extend this requirement to regencies and cities.
        4. Certain Index for Minimum Wage Calculation
          Previously, in calculating the minimum wage, the phrase “Certain Index” in Article 88D, paragraph (2) of Article 81, point 28 of Job Creation Law did not adequately explain how this index would be determined. The Constitutional Court decided to clarify the meaning of “Certain Index.” In its decision, the Constitutional Court stated that this index in the wage calculation formula is a variable representing the contribution of labor to the economic growth of a province or regency/city, taking into account the interests of both employers and workers, and the principle of proportionality to ensure a decent standard of living for workers.
        5. Certain Circumstances of Minimum Wage Determination
          Previously, the phrase “in certain circumstances” in Article 88F in Article 81 point 28 of Job Creation Law was not clearly defined, leading to ambiguity about the conditions it referred to.10 This Constitutional Court Decision clarifies the meaning of “in certain circumstances” in Article 88F in Article 81, point 28 of Job Creation Law, interpreting it to include, among other things, natural or non-natural disasters, as well as extraordinary global and/or national economic conditions, as determined by the President in accordance with legal provisions.
        6. Determination of Wages Above the Minimum Wage
          The Constitutional Court decision has mandated the inclusion of labor unions in the negotiation and determination of wages above the Minimum Wage. Previously, under Article 90A of Article 81 point 31 of Job Creation Law, labor unions within companies were not involved in wage negotiations with employers. According to the judges’ considerations, the involvement of labor unions must be taken into account in the process of formulating wage policies, including policies related to wages above the minimum wage, as part of the checks and balances mechanism in industrial relations.11
        7. Wage Structure and Scale Preparation
          Previously, Article 92, paragraph (1) of Manpower Law required employers to establish a wage structure and scale based on an employee’s classification, position, length of service, education, and competence. However, Article 81 point 33 of Job Creation Law amended the criteria to consider only “the company’s ability and the productivity of the employee”. The Court found that this change did not ensure the right to a decent livelihood as stipulated in Article 27 paragraph (2), and Article 28D paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. Therefore, in its decision, the Constitutional Court decided that employers must establish a wage structure and scale within the company by considering the company’s financial capacity and employee productivity, as well as classification, position, length of service, education, and competence.
        8. Other Rights of Workers Prioritized over Creditors
          Previously, Article 95 paragraph (3) of the Manpower Law as amended in Article 81 point 36 of Job Creation Law did not include “preferred creditors” as part of creditors. Then, the Constitutional Court deemed it is necessary to clarify the priority of settling other workers’ rights in this provision to avoid any confusion regarding the order of payment for workers’ rights when a company goes bankrupt.12 Through its decision, the Constitutional Court added the phrase “including preferred creditors“, ensuring that the workers’ rights in the event of bankruptcy or liquidation have priority over all creditors, including preferred creditors, except for creditors holding security interests.
        9. Active Participation of Wage Council
          Initially, Article 98 paragraph (1) of the Manpower Law as amended in Article 81 point 39 of Job Creation Law did not include the active role of wage councils. According to the Court’s considerations, the provision that only grants wage councils the authority to provide advice and recommendations, without the authority to formulate wage policies, hindered labor unions in effectively advocating for workers’ interests.13 Therefore, through its decision, the Constitutional Court added the phrase “wage councils that actively participate“, thereby requiring wage councils to be actively involved in the formulation of wage policies.
      6. Termination of Employment
        1. Termination of Employment Must Be Conducted Through Bipartite Negotiations by Consensus
          Previously, Article 151 paragraph (3) of the Manpower Law as amended in Article 81 point 40 of Job Creation Law did not specify that the resolution of terminations of employment must be conducted through bipartite negotiations based on the principle of deliberation to reach consensus. According to the judge’s considerations, since termination is a last resort, it is necessary to engage in deliberations to reach an agreement through bipartite negotiations.14In its decision, the Constitutional Court added a new provision, stating that if the worker has been informed and refuses the termination of employment, the resolution of the termination must be carried out through bipartite negotiations with mutual consensus between the employer and the worker and/or the labor union.
        2. Termination of Employment After Obtaining a Legally Binding Decision
          Previously, Article 151 paragraph (4) of the Manpower Law as amended in Article 81 point 40 of Job Creation Law did not specify that a termination of employment must receive a legally binding decision from an industrial relations dispute resolution body. Through its decision, the Constitutional Court amended this provision so that, if bipartite negotiations fail to reach an agreement, the termination of employment must go through the dispute resolution process in accordance with industrial relations dispute mechanisms and can only be carried out after obtaining a legally binding decision from the Industrial Relations Dispute Settlement Institution.
        3. Obligations of Employers and Workers in Industrial Relations Disputes
          Regarding the regulation of obligations between employers and workers in Industrial Relations Disputes, Article 157A paragraph (3) in Article 81 point 49 of the Job Creation Law previously stipulated that “the obligations of employers and workers toward each other shall remain in effect until the completion of the process of resolving industrial relations disputes according to its stages.” This provision in Article 157A paragraph (3) is interconnected with the provision in paragraph (1) as it relates to the obligations of employers and workers that must continue to be fulfilled until the Industrial Relations Dispute Resolution process is completed in accordance with its stages. If the dispute does not reach a resolution during the bipartite negotiation stage, the process proceeds to the next level. At this stage, workers and employers are still required to fulfilled their respective obligations, workers performing their duties and employers paying their wages until the dispute is resolved through a decision by the Industrial Relations Dispute Settlement institution.15The panel of judges concluded that this provision does not provide a clear and systematic legal framework for resolving industrial relations disputes.16  Consequently, the Court amend the phrase “until the completion of the process of resolving industrial relations disputes according to its stages” to “until the conclusion of the process of resolving industrial relations disputes with legally binding force in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Relations Dispute Settlement law.” With this amendment, the obligations of employers and workers during the resolution process of industrial relations disputes must be carried out until the process is concluded and has legally binding force, as stipulated in the provisions of the Industrial Relations Dispute Settlement law.
      7. Severance-related Provisions
        Previously, the phrase “at least” in the provision of Article 156 paragraph (2) of Manpower Law was replaced with the phrase “shall be provided with the following provisions: …” in Job Creation Law. According to the judges, by using the phrase “shall be provided with the following provisions: …“, the calculation of severance pay must be in accordance with the formula set out in the Manpower Law. If the phrase “at least” is used, it opens the possibility for workers to receive severance pay above the minimum amount, to meet the living needs of workers who are laid off. This would also serve as a form of recognition for the loyalty or performance of the worker.17 Based on these legal considerations, the judges decided to amend the article to state that the employer must pay severance pay at least, or minimally, according to the calculation as regulated in the Manpower Law.

        Furthermore, the explanation of Article 88 paragraph (1) of Manpower Law was previously removed in Article 81 point 27 of Job Creation Law, which simply stipulates, “Every worker is entitled to a decent living for humanity” without further explanation. Constitutional Court’s decision emphasized the importance of interpreting Article 88, paragraph (1) in Article 81 point 27 of Job Creation Law.18 The Constitutional Court thus established that a decent living for humanity includes income that ensures a livelihood, which refers to the total earnings or income a worker receives from their work, enabling them to meet the reasonable needs of the worker and their family. These needs include food and beverages, clothing, housing, education, healthcare, recreation, and retirement security.
    2. Next Move After Constitutional Decision Number 168/PUU-XXI/2023
      1. Manpower Policy Reform
        The Constitutional Court has urged the House of Representatives and the Government to promptly draft a new Labor Law, separating it from the provisions regulated under the Job Creation Law. The Constitutional Court has set a maximum time frame of two (2) years for lawmakers to complete the new Labor Law. This reform of the new Labor Law is driven by several key reasons. First, the substance of the Labor Law has undergone judicial review in 37 cases previously submitted to the Court. Due to the large number of provisions declared unconstitutional, the law is no longer cohesive. Second, although the Labor Law was amended through the Job Creation Law, not all provisions from the original Labor Law were accommodated, leading to overlaps between the two laws. Third, the Court observed that the lack of harmony and synchronization between the norms in these two laws could jeopardize workers’ rights protection and legal certainty for employers.19Therefore, the Constitutional Court encourages that the formation of a new law be carried out by involving active participation from labor unions to ensure a clearer and separate substance from the Job Creation Law.
      2. Harmonization of Other Regulations and Implementation After the Constitutional Court Decision
        In relation to Constitutional Court Decision No. 168/PUU-XXI/2023, several implementing regulations of the Labor Law need to be adjusted to accommodate this decision. Regulations that may be directly affected include Government Regulation No. 36 of 2021 on Wages, Government Regulation No. 35 of 2021 on Fixed-Term Employment Agreements, Outsourcing, Working Hours, Rest Periods, and Termination of Employment, as well as Government Regulation No. 34 of 2021 on the Utilization of Foreign Workers. Additionally, the provisions impacted by Constitutional Court Decision No. 168/PUU-XXI/2023 have now come into force and must be promptly implemented, so compliance with the relevant aspects of the Labor Law which were affected by Constitutional Court Decision Number 168/PUU-XXI/2023 is required.
  3. CONCLUSION
    The Constitutional Court Decision Number 168/PUU-XXI/2023, which granted a partial judicial review by revising 21 provisions within the Job Creation Law, represents a significant step in safeguarding labor rights in Indonesia. This decision affirms that certain provisions in the Job Creation Law conflict with constitutional principles, particularly concerning the protection of workers’ constitutional rights.
    In relation to this decision, the Constitutional Court has urged the lawmakers, which is the Representative Council and the Government, to promptly establish new labor legislation that separates or excludes provisions from Job Creation Law. The Court has set a maximum period of two years for the lawmakers to complete the new Manpower Law. It also emphasized the need for active participation from labor unions and workers in the law-making process. This decision is expected to serve as a foundation for improving labor regulations and creating a balance between investment interests and the protection of workers’ rights. Moving forward, collaboration among the government, employers, and labor unions will be key to achieving a fair and sustainable labor system in Indonesia.
Salza Farikah Aquina

References:

No. Norms of Articles in Law 6/2023 (Job Creation Law) Chapter IV Manpower Changes in Article Norms after Constitutional Court Decision No. 168/PUU-XXI/2023
1. Pasal 42 ayat (1) dalam Pasal 81 angka 4 UU Cipta Kerja “Setiap pemberi kerja yang mempekerjakan tenaga kerja asing wajib memiliki rencana penggunaan tenaga kerja asing yang disahkan oleh pemerintah pusat.” “Setiap pemberi kerja yang mempekerjakan tenaga kerja asing wajib memiliki rencana penggunaan tenaga kerja asing yang disahkan oleh menteri yang bertanggung jawab di bidang (urusan) ketenagakerjaan, in casu Menteri Tenaga Kerja.”
2. Pasal 42 ayat (4) dalam Pasal 81 angka 4 UU Cipta Kerja “Tenaga kerja asing dapat dipekerjakan di Indonesia hanya dalam hubungan kerja untuk jabatan tertentu dan waktu tertentu serta memiliki kompetensi sesuai dengan jabatan yang akan diduduki.” “Tenaga kerja asing dapat dipekerjakan di Indonesia hanya dalam hubungan kerja untuk jabatan tertentu dan waktu tertentu serta memiliki kompetensi sesuai dengan jabatan yang akan diduduki dengan memerhatikan pengutamaan penggunaan tenaga kerja Indonesia.”
3. Pasal 56 ayat (3) dalam Pasal 81 angka 12 UU Cipta Kerja “Jangka waktu atau selesainya suatu pekerjaan tertentu sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (2) ditentukan berdasarkan perjanjian kerja.” “Jangka waktu selesainya suatu pekerjaan tertentu dibuat tidak melebihi paling lama 5 (lima tahun), termasuk jika terdapat perpanjangan.”
4. Pasal 57 ayat (1) dalam Pasal 81 angka 13 UU Cipta Kerja “Perjanjian kerja waktu tertentu dibuat tertulis serta harus menggunakan bahasa Indonesia dan huruf latin.” “Perjanjian kerja waktu tertentu harus dibuat secara tertulis dengan menggunakan bahasa Indonesia dan huruf latin.”
5. Pasal 64 ayat (2) dalam Pasal 81 angka 18 UU Cipta Kerja “Pemerintah menetapkan sebagian pelaksanaan pekerjaan sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1).” “Menteri menetapkan sebagian pelaksanaan pekerjaan sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1) sesuai dengan jenis dan bidang pekerjaan alih daya yang diperjanjikan dalam perjanjian tertulis alih daya.”
6. Pasal 79 ayat (2) huruf b dalam Pasal 81 angka 25 UU Cipta Kerja “Waktu istirahat sebagaimana dimaksud dalam ayat (1) huruf a wajib diberikan kepada Pekerja/Buruh paling sedikit meliputi: b. istirahat mingguan 1 (satu) hari untuk 6 (enam) hari kerja dalam 1 (satu) minggu.” “Waktu istirahat sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1) huruf a wajib diberikan kepada Pekerja/Buruh paling sedikit meliputi: b. istirahat mingguan 1 (satu) hari untuk 6 (enam) hari kerja dalam 1 (satu) minggu atau 2 (dua) hari untuk 5 (lima) hari kerja dalam 1 (satu) minggu.”
7. Pasal 79 ayat (5) dalam Pasal 81 angka 25 UU Cipta Kerja “Selain waktu istirahat dan cuti sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1), ayat (2), dan ayat (3), perusahaan tertentu dapat memberikan istirahat panjang yang diatur dalam perjanjian kerja, peraturan perusahaan, atau perjanjian kerja bersama.” “Selain waktu istirahat dan cuti sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1), ayat (2), dan ayat (3), perusahaan tertentu memberikan istirahat panjang yang diatur dalam perjanjian kerja, peraturan perusahaan, atau perjanjian kerja bersama.”
8. Pasal 88 ayat (1) dalam Pasal 81 angka 27 UU Cipta Kerja “Setiap pekerja/buruh berhak atas penghidupan yang layak bagi kemanusiaan.” “Setiap pekerja/buruh berhak atas penghidupan yang layak bagi kemanusiaan, termasuk penghasilan yang memenuhi penghidupan yang merupakan jumlah penerimaan atau pendapatan pekerja/buruh dari hasil pekerjaannya sehingga mampu memenuhi kebutuhan hidup pekerja/buruh dan keluarganya secara wajar yang meliputi makanan dan minuman, sandang, perumahan, pendidikan, kesehatan, rekreasi, dan jaminan hari tua.”
9. Pasal 88 ayat (2) dalam Pasal 81 angka 27 UU Cipta Kerja “Pemerintah pusat menetapkan kebijakan pengupahan sebagai salah satu upaya mewujudkan hak pekerja/buruh atas penghidupan yang layak bagi kemanusiaan.” “Pemerintah pusat menetapkan kebijakan pengupahan sebagai salah satu upaya mewujudkan hak pekerja/buruh atas penghidupan yang layak bagi kemanusiaan dengan melibatkan dewan pengupahan daerah yang di dalamnya terdapat unsur pemerintah daerah dalam perumusan kebijakan pengupahan yang menjadi bahan bagi pemerintah pusat untuk penetapan kebijakan pengupahan.”
10. Pasal 88 ayat (3) huruf b dalam Pasal 81 angka 27 UU Cipta Kerja “Kebijakan pengupahan sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (2) meliputi:

b. struktur dan skala upah.”

 “Kebijakan pengupahan sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (2) meliputi:b. struktur dan skala upah yang proporsional.”
11. Pasal 88C dalam Pasal 81 angka 28 UU Cipta Kerja “(1) Gubernur wajib menetapkan upah minimum provinsi.

(2) Gubernur dapat menetapkan upah minimum kabupaten/kota.”

 “Gubernur wajib menetapkan upah minimum sektoral pada wilayah provinsi dan dapat untuk kabupaten/kota.”
12. Pasal 88D ayat (2) dalam Pasal 81 angka 28 UU Cipta Kerja “Formula perhitungan upah minimum sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1) mempertimbangkan variabel pertumbuhan ekonomi, inflasi, dan indeks tertentu.” “Formula perhitungan upah minimum sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1) mempertimbangkan variabel pertumbuhan ekonomi, inflasi, dan indeks tertentu. (Penjelasan: Indeks tertentu merupakan variabel yang mewakili kontribusi tenaga kerja terhadap pertumbuhan ekonomi provinsi atau kabupaten/kota dengan memperhatikan kepentingan perusahaan dan pekerja/buruh serta prinsip proporsionalitas untuk memenuhi kebutuhan hidup layak (KHL) bagi pekerja/buruh).”
13. Pasal 88F dalam Pasal 81 angka 28 UU Cipta Kerja “Dalam keadaan tertentu pemerintah dapat menetapkan formula penghitungan upah minimum yang berbeda dengan formula penghitungan upah minimum sebagai dimaksud dalam Pasal 88D ayat (2).” “Dalam keadaan tertentu pemerintah dapat menetapkan formula penghitungan upah minimum yang berbeda dengan formula penghitungan upah minimum sebagai dimaksud dalam Pasal 88D ayat (2). (Penjelasan: Yang dimaksud dengan dalam keadaan tertentu mencakup antara lain bencana alam atau non-alam, termasuk kondisi luar biasa perekonomian global dan/atau nasional yang ditetapkan oleh presiden sesuai dengan ketentuan peraturan perundang-undangan).”
14. Pasal 90A dalam Pasal 81 angka 31 UU Cipta Kerja “Upah di atas upah minimum ditetapkan berdasarkan kesepakatan antara pengusaha dan pekerja/buruh di perusahaan.” “Upah di atas upah minimum ditetapkan berdasarkan kesepakatan antara pengusaha dan pekerja/buruh atau serikat pekerja/serikat buruh di perusahaan.”
15. Pasal 92 ayat (1) dalam Pasal 81 angka 33 UU Cipta Kerja “Pengusaha wajib menyusun struktur dan skala upah di perusahaan dengan memperhatikan kemampuan perusahaan dan produktivitas.” “Pengusaha wajib menyusun struktur dan skala upah di perusahaan dengan memperhatikan kemampuan perusahaan dan produktivitas, serta golongan, jabatan, masa kerja, pendidikan, dan kompetensi.”
16. Pasal 95 ayat (3) dalam Pasal 81 angka 36 UU Cipta Kerja “Hak lainnya dari pekerja/buruh sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1) didahulukan pembayarannya atas semua kreditur kecuali para kreditur pemegang hak jaminan kebendaan.” “Hak lainnya dari pekerja/buruh sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1) didahulukan pembayarannya atas semua kreditur termasuk kreditur preferen kecuali para kreditur pemegang hak jaminan kebendaan.”
17. Pasal 98 ayat (1) dalam Pasal 81 angka 39 UU Cipta Kerja “Untuk memberikan saran dan pertimbangan kepada pemerintah pusat atau pemerintah daerah dalam perumusan kebijakan pengupahan serta pengembangan sistem pengupahan dibentuk dewan pengupahan.” “Untuk memberikan saran dan pertimbangan kepada pemerintah pusat atau pemerintah daerah dalam perumusan kebijakan pengupahan serta pengembangan sistem pengupahan dibentuk dewan pengupahan yang berpartisipasi secara aktif.”
18. Pasal 151 ayat (3) dalam Pasal 81 angka 40 UU Cipta Kerja “Dalam hal pekerja/buruh telah diberitahu dan menolak pemutusan hubungan kerja, penyelesaian pemutusan hubungan kerja wajib dilakukan melalui perundingan bipartit antara pengusaha dengan pekerja/buruh dan/atau serikat pekerja/serikat buruh.” “Dalam hal pekerja/buruh telah diberitahu dan menolak pemutusan hubungan kerja, penyelesaian pemutusan hubungan kerja wajib dilakukan melalui perundingan bipartit secara musyawarah untuk mufakat antara pengusaha dengan pekerja/buruh dan/atau serikat pekerja/serikat buruh.”
19. Pasal 151 ayat (4) dalam Pasal 81 angka 40 UU Cipta Kerja “Dalam hal perundingan bipartit sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (3) tidak mendapatkan kesepakatan, pemutusan hubungan kerja dilakukan melalui tahap berikutnya sesuai dengan mekanisme penyelesaian perselisihan hubungan industrial” “Dalam hal perundingan bipartit sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (3) tidak mendapatkan kesepakatan, maka Pemutusan Hubungan Kerja hanya dapat dilakukan setelah memperoleh penetapan dari lembaga penyelesaian perselisihan hubungan industrial yang putusannya telah berkekuatanhukum tetap.”
20. Pasal 157A ayat (3) dalam Pasal 81 angka 49 UU Cipta Kerja “Pelaksanaan kewajiban sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1) dilakukan sampai dengan selesainya proses penyelesaian perselisihan hubungan industrial sesuai tingkatannya.” “Pelaksanaan kewajiban sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1) dilakukan sampai berakhirnya proses penyelesaian perselisihan hubungan industrial yang berkekuatan hukum tetap sesuai dengan ketentuan dalam undang-undang PPHI.”
21. Pasal 156 ayat (2) dalam Pasal 81 angka 47 UU Cipta Kerja “Uang pesangon sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1) diberikan dengan ketentuan sebagai berikut:” “Uang pesangon sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1) paling sedikit:”

Sources

  1. Constitutional Court of Republic of Indonesia. Kabulkan Sebagian, MK Minta UU Ketenagakerjaan Dipisahkan dari UU Cipta Kerja. Available at https://testing.mkri.id/berita/kabulkan-sebagian,-mk-minta-uu-ketenagakerjaan-dipisahkan-dari-uu-cipta-kerja-21782
  2. Constitutional Court Decision Number 168/PUU-XXI/2023
  3. Constitutional Court Decision Number 168/PUU-XXI/2023: Judge Consideration p. 558
  4. Article 59 paragraph (1) poin b of Law Number 13 of 2003
  5. Legal Considerations of the Judges of the Constitutional Court Decision 168/PUU-XXI/2023 p. 564
  6. Legal Considerations of the Judges of the Constitutional Court Decision 168/PUU-XXI/2023 p. 579
  7. Legal Considerations of the Judges of the Constitutional Court Decision 168/PUU-XXI/2023 p. 591
  8. Legal Considerations of the Judges of the Constitutional Court Decision 168/PUU-XXI/2023 p. 594
  9. Legal Considerations of the Judges of the Constitutional Court Decision 168/PUU-XXI/2023 p. 616
  10. Legal Considerations of the Judges of the Constitutional Court Decision 168/PUU-XXI/2023 p. 624
  11. Legal Considerations of the Judges of the Constitutional Court Decision 168/PUU-XXI/2023 p. 628
  12. Legal Considerations of the Judges of the Constitutional Court Decision 168/PUU-XXI/2023 p. 642
  13. Legal Considerations of the Judges of the Constitutional Court Decision 168/PUU-XXI/2023 p. 645
  14. Legal Considerations of the Judges of the Constitutional Court Decision 168/PUU-XXI/2023 p. 650
  15. Legal Considerations of the Judges of the Constitutional Court Decision 168/PUU-XXI/2023 p. 662
  16. Legal Considerations of the Judges of the Constitutional Court Decision 168/PUU-XXI/2023 p. 663
  17. Legal Considerations of the Judges of the Constitutional Court Decision 168/PUU-XXI/2023 p. 666
  18. Legal Considerations of the Judges of the Constitutional Court Decision 168/PUU-XXI/2023 p. 600
  19. Legal Considerations of the Judges of the Constitutional Court Decision 168/PUU-XXI/2023 p. 676