Indonesia’s Constitutional Court Sends the Government’s New Job Law for a Major Revamp
In a move that has sent shockwaves through Jakarta’s streets, the Constitutional Court told the government to flesh out its new job‑creation law over the next two years. If they don’t, the Court will strike it down for good.
Why the Court Isn’t Buying the Rushed Pass
- More than 70 existing laws got a quick makeover in last year’s legislation.
- Protesters stormed streets chanting that workers and the planet are being steam‑rolled.
- Union‑led legal challenge found that the law was made with a “procedural shortcut” that violated the constitution.
Chief Judge Anwar Usman warned that if the government doesn’t fix the “procedural abc” within two years, the whole bill will be scooped as “permanently unconstitutional.”
Government’s Response
Airlangga Hartarto, who heads the Ministry of Economic Affairs, said the government is “respecting the ruling.” He promised to “immediately follow up” and heed the Court’s instructions.
Union Voices: Justice Is On Their Side
Deni Ferdiansyah, a 43‑year‑old union member, was on the front lines outside the court. He said:
“We feared the Constitutional Court would be pro‑government, but thank God they used their conscience.”
“This law forces workers to suffer, especially when it comes to minimum wage.”
- Workers are upset about new rules on severance pay, contract labour, outsourcing, and the race‑car‑speed policy that only requires environmental studies for high‑risk projects.
- KSPI labor union leaders are holding their breath, hoping the Court’s ruling brings a breather for their wage‑squeeze fight.
- KSPI lawyer Said Salahudin called for a “total restart” of the drafting process, noting the Court’s action is “very bold.”
What This Means for the Crowd
The law was supposed to cut red tape, lure investors, and make Indonesian workers more competitive. Critics say the government hit the “fast‑forward” button without any real consultation.
Now, with the Court’s ruling, it’s clear the legal brief has to be rewritten. Failure to do so will “undo” it altogether—no wish‑ful thinking, just a clean thumb‑print on the law’s invalidance.
