TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
Explainer: Jobs law ruling a constitutional compromise
The Constitutional Court said it sought to strike a "balance between procedural propriety and the strategic goals of the jobs law".
Change Size
A protester runs toward police officers on motorcycles during a clash in Jakarta on Oct. 13, 2020. A series of protests took place across the country following the House of Representatives’ decision to pass the Job Creation Law on Oct. 5, 2020. (JP/Seto Wardhana)
T
span style="font-size: 20pt;">
The court ruled that the government and the House of Representatives would have to pass a revised, constitutionally compliant version of the law within two years.
If they fail to do so, the law will be permanently repealed and the regulations it sought to replace will be reinstated. In the meantime, the jobs law will remain in effect.
The ruling has raised a number of questions, including whether an unconstitutional procedure renders the resultant law void and whether revising a 2011 law on legislative procedure would be enough to make the jobs law valid again. The court held that because the 2011 law did not specify an “omnibus” form of legislation, the Job Creation Law, which used the omnibus method of revising multiple laws at once, was procedurally invalid.
Opinions are divided on what would bring the law into accordance with the constitution. The government says policymakers must pass a new version of the law, but House Legislation Body (Baleg) member Firman Soebagyo has said he believes amending the 2011 law alone will be enough to make the law valid. Constitutional law experts and labor unions say policymakers should start both the legislative process and the discussion of the content of the jobs law from scratch.
Read also: 2024 polls may complicate Jokowi’s efforts to revise jobs law
Economists fear the ruling will allow business uncertainty to linger in the country, depressing investment.
