Changing The Number Of Pages Of The Draft Job Creation Law: A Trick By The Ruler That Can Also Become A People's Weapon

JAKARTA - The number of pages of the draft Omnibus Law on Employment Creation continues to change, even when it is declared final. From 1,028, 905, 1,035, until the last 812 pages. The People's Legislative Assembly (DPR) said the differences - in particular - occurred due to changes in format. No substance is disturbed. Lie. We found a number of changes. This is legislative fraud. However, this fraud can also be a weapon against this legal product in the Constitutional Court (MK).

At the start of the discussion issue, when the Omnibus Law on Cipta Kerja was still a draft, it was recorded that there were 1,028 drafts. The draft can be uploaded via the official website of the Coordinating Ministry for Economic Affairs. Then, when it was passed into law last week, Monday, October 5, the manuscript in circulation changed to 905 pages. The manuscript was circulated as the final draft of the Work Creation Omnibus Law Bill which was read in plenary.

Yesterday, Monday, October 12, a copy of the manuscript was circulating showing the change in the number of pages to 1,035. The DPR confirmed the manuscript. This manuscript is different from the first draft, the Work Creation Bill last June or the text in the last discussion last September. This morning, another copy was circulating again with the number of pages changing again. This time it is 812 pages.

The 812-page manuscript is said to be the most final and will soon be submitted to President Joko Widodo (Jokowi). DPR Secretary General Indra Iskandar said the difference occurred because of the change in format, from the A4 size (210x297 millimeter) to the legal size: F4 or folio (210x330 millimeter). Regarding the change in substance, Indra was reluctant to talk.

"Yes (812 pages). Lastly, the paper uses a legal format. Earlier (the draft with 1,035 pages) used A4 format. Now it's 812 pages legal ... I don't want the matter of substance. I'm just administration," said Indra. told reporters, Monday, October 12.

Deputy Speaker of the DPR, Azis Syamsudin, is more firm in stating that the defense is no change in substance. "For friends of the respected council members who stated that the substance had changed, whether the verses, articles, and contents were all recorded, there were notes. There were notes," he said.

The provisions on paper size in making the law are regulated in Law Number 12 of 2011 concerning the Formation of Legislative Regulations. The rules for the use of paper are listed in the Explanation section, to be precise in Appendix II concerning Law Formulation Techniques. Point C point 284 in Chapter III concerning Variety of Discussion of the Prevailing Laws in the attachment regulates:

Manuscripts of Legislation typed in the Old Style Bookman font, with the letter 12, on F4 paper.

Deepening

We tried to explore the format change in question. Our first finding, there is a change in the number of characters. Converting two PDF copies of the Cipta Kerja Omnibus Law into Word format, we actually got an increase in the number of characters between the two.

Copies totaling 1,035 pages consist of 177,554 words and 1,306,373 characters. Meanwhile, the 812-page copy consists of 178,738 words and 1,314,779 characters. In other words, the DPR did not just change the paper format, type and font size. There are changes in the editorial.

No need to talk about substance. Since its inception, the process of making the Omnibus Law on Cipta Kerja has been problematic. Especially with this change. Researchers of the Forum for the Concerned People of Parliament (Formappi) said that there should not be any changes - except for the format - when a law has been passed in plenary.

"Changes that have an impact on the different meanings of the two texts should not have taken place after the plenary session, except for the plenary decision, for one or two things that were clearly stated at the plenary session," said Lucius, contacted by VOI , Tuesday, October 13.

"The fact is there is no discussion about the existence of a substance that still needs to be formulated at the plenary session. This means that there is no room for the emergence of new norms in any way. If there is, it is definitely problematic in a formal manner," he added.

Or, let's talk about substance. Before turning into 812 pages, the draft of the Omnibus Law on Job Creation had violated the above principles. We note significant substance changes in the draft totaling 905 (5 October) and 1,035 (12 October). The changes were equally post-plenary.

The first change is in CHAPTER IV LABOR or the Employment Cluster. The amendment includes five articles, three of which are in the Second Section of Employment and the other two are in the Third Section of Types of Social Security Programs. Let's see one by one.

The first amendment is in Article 79 which regulates rest and leave periods. There was an added clause to the October 12 draft. From the previously five Verses, it is added to become six Verses.

This paragraph reads: Further provisions regarding certain companies as referred to in paragraph (5) shall be regulated in a Government Regulation .

In addition, Article 88A related to labor relations with companies also adds three paragraphs to the October 12 version of the draft. The three verses are:

(6) Entrepreneurs who because of their deliberate intent or negligence result in late payment of wages, will be subject to a fine in accordance with a certain percentage of the worker's / laborer's wages.

(7) Workers / laborers who commit violations on purpose or negligence may be subject to fines.

(8) The government regulates the imposition of fines on entrepreneurs and / or workers / laborers in paying wages.

Finally, there have been a number of changes between draft 905 and 1,035 regarding the terms of termination of employment (PHK). We take a few examples.

First, in Paragraph (1) point a of the October 5 version of the draft of the Ciptaker Law, it is explained that termination of employment can occur for reasons: companies are merging, consolidating, taking over, or separating companies.

Whereas in the October 12 version of the draft, the regulations for termination of employment in point a are added: companies merge, consolidate, take over, or separate companies and workers / laborers are not willing to continue working relations or employers are not willing to accept workers / laborers.

Apart from that, point b related to the terms of layoffs was also changed. In the 905-page draft, the contents of point b. Layoffs can occur if the company performs efficiency. Meanwhile, in the version 1.035 draft, the points were extended to: The company made efficiency followed by closing the company or not being followed by the closure of the company because the company suffered a loss.

Closed and formal defects

Researcher of the Forum for the People Caring for Parliament (Formappi) Lucius Karus said that the substance changes in the draft have further strengthened the allegation of formal defects in the course of the Ciptaker Bill. "The draft that was decided upon in the plenary was further tampered with and changed the existing meaning in the norms that have been decided in plenary," said Lucius when contacted by VOI .

In addition, he said that the change in substance also confirmed that the discussion process until the ratification of the Ciptaker Bill was indeed carried out in private. "It seems that this closure has a basis for making it easier for the DPR and the government to change the clause in accordance with their wishes until they are at the stage of submitting the final manuscript to the president for signature," he said.

However, there is something to be aware of from all the hassle of changing this number of pages. According to Lucius, the spread of several versions of the Ciptaker Bill was a DPR tactic to outwit the public. So that it opens the opportunity for the DPR to insert the real final text to the government.

"This is an elite agenda, the DPR and the government appear to be deliberately unwilling to open themselves to the public for participation in the discussion process. Because they know very well that things that are rejected by the public are what are accommodated," he said.

The last resort

For this reason, the last resort to challenge this policy is none other than the Constitutional Court. All changes in this number, on the one hand, can strengthen the narrative of formal flaws in the process of making this Work Creation Omnibus Law. "And that will definitely strengthen the evidence of the public who later sued the Constitutional Court," Lucius.

Lucius also said that the judicial review lawsuit to the Constitutional Court had to be filed as soon as possible. This is necessary to ensure that there is no further effort from the government to alter the results of the previous discussions in accordance with their decisions.

"Because it is definitely important in the Constitutional Court to prove it through the minutes of the meeting with audio and video recordings to ascertain whether what is then in the final manuscript (the Ciptaker Law) signed by the president is really the result of discussion," explained Lucius.

Lucius said that the test would later be proven at the Court. That's why it is important for the public who submitted JR to formulate their objections from now on. "The evidence will later be asked by the Constitutional Court to become a basis for consideration, whether the formal defect is proven or not," he said.