Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
2026 Hak Cipta Milik Hukumonline.com
Produk Pilihan
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami Agus Sahbani, Christina Desy
Disputes between the employers are employees are one of the most common occurrences in industrial relations. While there are many methods to resolve these disputes, the industrial relations court remains the apex institution for settling these conflicts.
The establishment of industrial relations courts under Law No. 2 of 2004 on Industrial Relations Dispute Resolution (“Law”), appeared an efficient and straightforward way to handle the increasing number of industrial relations cases.
However, the Law is now the subject of a judicial review. The Law has also been previously reviewed twice at the Constitutional Court in both 2012 and 2013. In both cases the petitions were rejected.
The Law is now subject to third judicial review, filed by Agus, a citizen from West Karawang, who also filed the judicial review in 2013. In the current petition, Mr. Agus seeks review of Article 59 (2) of the Law, which covers the establishment of industrial relations courts (pengadilan hubungan industrial – “PHI”).
The Article in question states that PHI must be established in regencies/cities, especially industrial locations, under a presidential decree. According to Agus, this provision discriminates against disputing parties domiciled in different regencies/municipalities. Further, the presidential decree requirement indicates an intervention by the government in a judicial institution, and this requirement also causes a potential lack of PHI being established in certain regencies/municipalities.
Due to the lack of existing PHI, disputing parties must submit their cases to be settled by PHI at the provincial level. Agus’ involvement in a case representing 449 employees required the claim being submitted to the PHI in Bandung, as there is no PHI located in the local regency. Furthermore, Agus also discovered many disputing parties from regencies or cities outside Bandung, such as Subang, Bogor, and Purwakarta submitting cases in Bandung.
Current circumstances are at times definitely disadvantageous to certain parties as they require more time as well as higher costs for the parties involved. Based on these considerations, Agus filed his petition hoping the Constitutional Court will annul Article 59 paragraph 2 of the Law, specifically the phrase referring to the presidential decree requirement.
Understanding Agus’ concern, Arief Hidayat, the Constitutional Judge hearing this matter, suggested Agus improve his petition by providing more details on the reasons for the claim and describing options for a legal basis for PHI establishment other than a presidential decree.
(hot/kc)
Agus Sahbani, Christina Desy
Disputes between the employers are employees are one of the most common occurrences in industrial relations. While there are many methods to resolve these disputes, the industrial relations court remains the apex institution for settling these conflicts.
The establishment of industrial relations courts under Law No. 2 of 2004 on Industrial Relations Dispute Resolution (“Law”), appeared an efficient and straightforward way to handle the increasing number of industrial relations cases.
However, the Law is now the subject of a judicial review. The Law has also been previously reviewed twice at the Constitutional Court in both 2012 and 2013. In both cases the petitions were rejected.
The Law is now subject to third judicial review, filed by Agus, a citizen from West Karawang, who also filed the judicial review in 2013. In the current petition, Mr. Agus seeks review of Article 59 (2) of the Law, which covers the establishment of industrial relations courts (pengadilan hubungan industrial – “PHI”).
The Article in question states that PHI must be established in regencies/cities, especially industrial locations, under a presidential decree. According to Agus, this provision discriminates against disputing parties domiciled in different regencies/municipalities. Further, the presidential decree requirement indicates an intervention by the government in a judicial institution, and this requirement also causes a potential lack of PHI being established in certain regencies/municipalities.
Due to the lack of existing PHI, disputing parties must submit their cases to be settled by PHI at the provincial level. Agus’ involvement in a case representing 449 employees required the claim being submitted to the PHI in Bandung, as there is no PHI located in the local regency. Furthermore, Agus also discovered many disputing parties from regencies or cities outside Bandung, such as Subang, Bogor, and Purwakarta submitting cases in Bandung.
Current circumstances are at times definitely disadvantageous to certain parties as they require more time as well as higher costs for the parties involved. Based on these considerations, Agus filed his petition hoping the Constitutional Court will annul Article 59 paragraph 2 of the Law, specifically the phrase referring to the presidential decree requirement.
Understanding Agus’ concern, Arief Hidayat, the Constitutional Judge hearing this matter, suggested Agus improve his petition by providing more details on the reasons for the claim and describing options for a legal basis for PHI establishment other than a presidential decree.
(hot/kc)