Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
2026 Hak Cipta Milik Hukumonline.com
Produk Pilihan
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami Agus Sahbani, Yanuar Pribadhie
The East Java Regional Board of the Indonesian Employers Association (Apindo) has filed a judicial review petition with the Constitutional Court regarding Articles 88 (4) and 89 (3) of Law No. 13 of 2003 on Labor, which provides for the determination of minimum wage levels.
Article 88 (4) of the Labor Law states that the Government will set minimum wages in accordance with decent living standards with consideration given to productivity and economic growth. Apindo argues that this article conflicts with Article 33 (4) of the 1945 Constitution and should therefore be revoked by the Constitutional Court.
Ali Markus, Chairman of the East Java Regional Board of Apindo, views this article as burdensome on minor industries. Ali further explains that the minimum wage concept aims to ensure that even the most marginalized laborer will receive appropriate wages, in other words provide a safety net.
Mr. Markus asserts that some small businesses do not have the capability to pay the minimum wages to their employees, as the decent living standard level set under the Minister of Manpower and Transmigration Regulation No. 13 of 2012 increases annually.
Under such circumstances, not all small businesses with limited capital are able to make adjustments to cover increasingly higher minimum wages. Consequently, there is a mismatch with the basic concept of a safety net, as the system does not reflect the capability of small businesses to fulfill the required standards.
“Even worse, the rallies organized by labors have aggravated the burden on businesses as a direct cause of a decline on productivity,” Mr. Markus said on Thursday.
In regard to Article 89 (3) of the Labor Law, Mr. Markus objects to the wording in the section that stipulates the “Governor sets minimum wages by taking into account the recommendation from the Provincial Wages Council or regent/mayor”.
Mr. Markus says that the phrase “by taking into account” under this article has been misused, as the Governor never really considers recommendations because the phrase does not mandate any obligation to do so.
“Consequently, the Governor has often set the minimum wage far beyond the decent living standards. The appropriate wording should contain wording that makes is obligatory for the Governor to refer to the recommendation,” said Ali.
In response to the petition, Justice Patrialis Akbar has asked Apindo to further elaborate on the causal connection between the articles in question and losses that they suffered due to the implementation of those articles.
Justice Akbar also requires Apindo to better describe the conflict between the articles and the Constitution, and emphasized, “it is not enough to merely state the article of the law without any explanation on the contradiction with the 1945 Constitution.”
Meanwhile, Justice Anwar Usman reminded that the Constitutional Court decision is erga omnes (towards all) in nature. In other words, decisions of the Constitutional Court apply nationally. Therefore, as Justice Usman says, the petition must include the National Board of Apindo as one of the applicants.
(hot/kc)
Agus Sahbani, Yanuar Pribadhie
The East Java Regional Board of the Indonesian Employers Association (Apindo) has filed a judicial review petition with the Constitutional Court regarding Articles 88 (4) and 89 (3) of Law No. 13 of 2003 on Labor, which provides for the determination of minimum wage levels.
Article 88 (4) of the Labor Law states that the Government will set minimum wages in accordance with decent living standards with consideration given to productivity and economic growth. Apindo argues that this article conflicts with Article 33 (4) of the 1945 Constitution and should therefore be revoked by the Constitutional Court.
Ali Markus, Chairman of the East Java Regional Board of Apindo, views this article as burdensome on minor industries. Ali further explains that the minimum wage concept aims to ensure that even the most marginalized laborer will receive appropriate wages, in other words provide a safety net.
Mr. Markus asserts that some small businesses do not have the capability to pay the minimum wages to their employees, as the decent living standard level set under the Minister of Manpower and Transmigration Regulation No. 13 of 2012 increases annually.
Under such circumstances, not all small businesses with limited capital are able to make adjustments to cover increasingly higher minimum wages. Consequently, there is a mismatch with the basic concept of a safety net, as the system does not reflect the capability of small businesses to fulfill the required standards.
“Even worse, the rallies organized by labors have aggravated the burden on businesses as a direct cause of a decline on productivity,” Mr. Markus said on Thursday.
In regard to Article 89 (3) of the Labor Law, Mr. Markus objects to the wording in the section that stipulates the “Governor sets minimum wages by taking into account the recommendation from the Provincial Wages Council or regent/mayor”.
Mr. Markus says that the phrase “by taking into account” under this article has been misused, as the Governor never really considers recommendations because the phrase does not mandate any obligation to do so.
“Consequently, the Governor has often set the minimum wage far beyond the decent living standards. The appropriate wording should contain wording that makes is obligatory for the Governor to refer to the recommendation,” said Ali.
In response to the petition, Justice Patrialis Akbar has asked Apindo to further elaborate on the causal connection between the articles in question and losses that they suffered due to the implementation of those articles.
Justice Akbar also requires Apindo to better describe the conflict between the articles and the Constitution, and emphasized, “it is not enough to merely state the article of the law without any explanation on the contradiction with the 1945 Constitution.”
Meanwhile, Justice Anwar Usman reminded that the Constitutional Court decision is erga omnes (towards all) in nature. In other words, decisions of the Constitutional Court apply nationally. Therefore, as Justice Usman says, the petition must include the National Board of Apindo as one of the applicants.
(hot/kc)