Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
2026 Hak Cipta Milik Hukumonline.com
Produk Pilihan
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami Ari Pramuditya, Ady Thea
The Industrial Relations Cout in Jakarta. Photo by: RES
Jakarta’s Industrial Relations Court (Pengadilan Hubungan Industrial – “PHI”) has just issued a verdict in case No. 64/PHI.G/2014/PN Jkt Pst, which saw Mrs. Erna Amiarsih pitted against the Embassy of the Republic of India to the Republic of Indonesia.
The decision, dated 27October 2014, has just been issued and is essentially intended to punish the Indian Embassy by forcing the institution to pay compensation amounting to USD 20,464 for wrongful termination of employment (Pemutusan Hubungan Kerja – “PHK”).
Mrs. Amiarsih is the claimant in the case and the compensation claimed consists of severance pay, rewards due for the work period in question, and compensation and wages for the period of the PHK process.
Hukumonlinerecords reveal that this is not the first case labor lawsuit involving a foreign embassy in Indonesia that the PHI has adjudicated over. Previously, a worker sued the Brazilian embassyand the PHI ruled that the embassy should compensate the worker in question with an award of severance pay.
Mrs. Amiarsih’s attorney, Francisco Soarez Pati, told hukumonline that his client had been working at the Indian Embassy as a local member of staff when the embassy had terminated Mrs. Amiarsih’s employment without any legal basis. The embassy had also deprived Mrs. Amiarsih of severance pay and expelled her from the embassy.
Consequently, Mrs. Amiarsih reported her treatment to the National Commission of Human Rights (Komisi Nasional Hak Asasi Manusia – “Komnas HAM”). Unfortunately however, the Indian Embassy did not respond positively to the summons filed by Komnas HAM. Komnas HAM therefore concluded that the Indian Embassy in Indonesia was not interested in resolving the matter.
Mrs. Amiarsih then took her complaint to the South Jakarta Labor Office (Suku Dinas Ketenagakerjaan – “Sudinakertrans”). According to Mr. Pati however, the subsequent summons issued by Sudinakertrans also met with a lack of response from the Indian Embassy.
Finally, Sudinakertrans issued a recommendation dated February 17th, 2014, which proposed that the Indian Embassy in Indonesia provide compensation to Mrs. Amiarsih after her termination of employment.
Mrs. Amiarsih and her legal counsel finally filed a claim with PHI in Jakarta on 25 March 2014. The PHI judges then sent several letters to the Indian Embassy calling them to trial. Throughout the entire duration of the trial however, no embassy representative or lawyer attended the proceedings. Consequently, on 27 October 2014, PHI judges issued a verstek decision (a decision made without the presence of the defendant).
The Central Jakarta District Court then formally conveyed the contents of the decision in a letter which was sent to the Indian Embassy in Indonesia via the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Mrs. Amiarsih and her legal counsel also submitted a petition to the Chairman of the Central Jakarta District Court.
This request was followed by the Central Jakarta District Court sending a summons to the Indian Embassy via the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The summons stated that a representative of the embassy should come before the Chairman of the Central Jakarta District Court.
Mr. Pati told hukumonline on Tuesday 1 December 2015 that his client was still awaiting compensation and that efforts at mediation undertaken by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs designed to bring the two parties together had failed.
“We have the rule of law here. Foreign embassies must also abide by our laws,” asserted Mr. Pati.
Mr. Pati explained that Mrs. Amiarsih had sent a letter to the Indian Embassy on 9 November 2015 demanding that it respect and implement the PHI’s decision. The letter also included a mention of a similar case that had occurred at the Italian Embassy in India.
The letter contained the line: “We request that His Excellency, Mr. Gurjit Singh, Ambassador of the Republic of India to the Republic of Indonesia, comply with the rights of our client.” The letter was copied and sent to several state agencies.
Mr. Pati expressed his hope that all of the relevant parties in this case would be able to fully protect Indonesian citizens from such violations of their rights in the future. This demand is in accordance with Article 18 paragraph (1) of Law No. 37 of 1999on Foreign Relations, which mandates that the government protect the interests of citizens or Indonesian legal entities in legal disputes with foreign representatives in Indonesia.
Industrial Relations Court or District Court?
M. Hadi Subhan, a law lecturer at Airlangga University, stated that the PHI decision must be considered legally right and proper until it is annulled. However, Mr. Subhan questioned the legal standing of foreign embassies in matters pertaining to employment. According to Subhan, Law No. 13 of 2003 on Labor only regulates employment by companies or social entities, and not foreign embassies.
Mr. Subhan thus believes that employment issues as they relate to foreign embassies should be the domain of the District Court, not the PHI. “However, we should respect the PHI decision, and it should be considered a correct decision,” stated Mr. Subhan.
Another issue relates to execution. Mr. Subhan noted that PHI decisions often ran into problems as regards their execution, not only where embassies were concerned but also as regards companies and businesses. Executing these decisions can prove expensive, according to Mr. Subhan, and the PHI only has a modest budget.
However, all of this does not necessarily mean that a PHI decision punishing the Indian Embassy cannot be implemented, as execution can be carried out via government-to-government mechanisms, and through the Foreign Ministry.
Mr. Subhan stated that non-civil servant embassy staff fell under the jurisdiction of the Labor Law, which should be fully respected by national embassies. Moreover, if representatives of foreign countries object to any court decision, then they are entitled to bring legal action.
Subhan further elucidated upon Article 47 of the Labor Law, which regulates foreign workers working in Indonesia. According to Subhan, each employer is obliged to pay compensation to the tune of USD 100 each month when they hire foreign workers. However, such compensation does not apply to government agencies, representatives of foreign countries, international agencies, social organizations, religious institutions and certain positions in educational institutions.
(sp)
Ari Pramuditya, Ady Thea
The Industrial Relations Cout in Jakarta. Photo by: RES
Jakarta’s Industrial Relations Court (Pengadilan Hubungan Industrial – “PHI”) has just issued a verdict in case No. 64/PHI.G/2014/PN Jkt Pst, which saw Mrs. Erna Amiarsih pitted against the Embassy of the Republic of India to the Republic of Indonesia.
The decision, dated 27October 2014, has just been issued and is essentially intended to punish the Indian Embassy by forcing the institution to pay compensation amounting to USD 20,464 for wrongful termination of employment (Pemutusan Hubungan Kerja – “PHK”).
Mrs. Amiarsih is the claimant in the case and the compensation claimed consists of severance pay, rewards due for the work period in question, and compensation and wages for the period of the PHK process.
Hukumonlinerecords reveal that this is not the first case labor lawsuit involving a foreign embassy in Indonesia that the PHI has adjudicated over. Previously, a worker sued the Brazilian embassyand the PHI ruled that the embassy should compensate the worker in question with an award of severance pay.
Mrs. Amiarsih’s attorney, Francisco Soarez Pati, told hukumonline that his client had been working at the Indian Embassy as a local member of staff when the embassy had terminated Mrs. Amiarsih’s employment without any legal basis. The embassy had also deprived Mrs. Amiarsih of severance pay and expelled her from the embassy.
Consequently, Mrs. Amiarsih reported her treatment to the National Commission of Human Rights (Komisi Nasional Hak Asasi Manusia – “Komnas HAM”). Unfortunately however, the Indian Embassy did not respond positively to the summons filed by Komnas HAM. Komnas HAM therefore concluded that the Indian Embassy in Indonesia was not interested in resolving the matter.
Mrs. Amiarsih then took her complaint to the South Jakarta Labor Office (Suku Dinas Ketenagakerjaan – “Sudinakertrans”). According to Mr. Pati however, the subsequent summons issued by Sudinakertrans also met with a lack of response from the Indian Embassy.
Finally, Sudinakertrans issued a recommendation dated February 17th, 2014, which proposed that the Indian Embassy in Indonesia provide compensation to Mrs. Amiarsih after her termination of employment.
Mrs. Amiarsih and her legal counsel finally filed a claim with PHI in Jakarta on 25 March 2014. The PHI judges then sent several letters to the Indian Embassy calling them to trial. Throughout the entire duration of the trial however, no embassy representative or lawyer attended the proceedings. Consequently, on 27 October 2014, PHI judges issued a verstek decision (a decision made without the presence of the defendant).
The Central Jakarta District Court then formally conveyed the contents of the decision in a letter which was sent to the Indian Embassy in Indonesia via the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Mrs. Amiarsih and her legal counsel also submitted a petition to the Chairman of the Central Jakarta District Court.
This request was followed by the Central Jakarta District Court sending a summons to the Indian Embassy via the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The summons stated that a representative of the embassy should come before the Chairman of the Central Jakarta District Court.
Mr. Pati told hukumonline on Tuesday 1 December 2015 that his client was still awaiting compensation and that efforts at mediation undertaken by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs designed to bring the two parties together had failed.
“We have the rule of law here. Foreign embassies must also abide by our laws,” asserted Mr. Pati.
Mr. Pati explained that Mrs. Amiarsih had sent a letter to the Indian Embassy on 9 November 2015 demanding that it respect and implement the PHI’s decision. The letter also included a mention of a similar case that had occurred at the Italian Embassy in India.
The letter contained the line: “We request that His Excellency, Mr. Gurjit Singh, Ambassador of the Republic of India to the Republic of Indonesia, comply with the rights of our client.” The letter was copied and sent to several state agencies.
Mr. Pati expressed his hope that all of the relevant parties in this case would be able to fully protect Indonesian citizens from such violations of their rights in the future. This demand is in accordance with Article 18 paragraph (1) of Law No. 37 of 1999on Foreign Relations, which mandates that the government protect the interests of citizens or Indonesian legal entities in legal disputes with foreign representatives in Indonesia.
Industrial Relations Court or District Court?
M. Hadi Subhan, a law lecturer at Airlangga University, stated that the PHI decision must be considered legally right and proper until it is annulled. However, Mr. Subhan questioned the legal standing of foreign embassies in matters pertaining to employment. According to Subhan, Law No. 13 of 2003 on Labor only regulates employment by companies or social entities, and not foreign embassies.
Mr. Subhan thus believes that employment issues as they relate to foreign embassies should be the domain of the District Court, not the PHI. “However, we should respect the PHI decision, and it should be considered a correct decision,” stated Mr. Subhan.
Another issue relates to execution. Mr. Subhan noted that PHI decisions often ran into problems as regards their execution, not only where embassies were concerned but also as regards companies and businesses. Executing these decisions can prove expensive, according to Mr. Subhan, and the PHI only has a modest budget.
However, all of this does not necessarily mean that a PHI decision punishing the Indian Embassy cannot be implemented, as execution can be carried out via government-to-government mechanisms, and through the Foreign Ministry.
Mr. Subhan stated that non-civil servant embassy staff fell under the jurisdiction of the Labor Law, which should be fully respected by national embassies. Moreover, if representatives of foreign countries object to any court decision, then they are entitled to bring legal action.
Subhan further elucidated upon Article 47 of the Labor Law, which regulates foreign workers working in Indonesia. According to Subhan, each employer is obliged to pay compensation to the tune of USD 100 each month when they hire foreign workers. However, such compensation does not apply to government agencies, representatives of foreign countries, international agencies, social organizations, religious institutions and certain positions in educational institutions.
(sp)