The Employment Creation Act Is Unconstitutional And Must Be Revised For A Maximum Of 2 Years, The Constitutional Court's Decision Creates Legal Uncertainty

Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm on Unsplash

JAKARTA - Head of the South Jakarta Peradi Legal Aid Center, Rika Irianti said the Constitutional Court's (MK) decision stating Law Number 11 of 2020 concerning Job Creation was unconstitutional, created legal uncertainty. Moreover, in the decision this rule is still given a period of two years for revision.

"It has been declared unconstitutional but is still given room for improvement for two years, so if we look closely, the decision does not produce a legal certainty," said Rika, Friday, November 26.

He said the Court's decision could cause public unrest. The reason is the fact that the process of forming the Job Creation Law has violated the formal requirements in the process of forming the law.

So, Rika regretted that the law was then declared unconstitutional. Moreover, the Employment Creation Act was formulated for a long time and cost a lot of money.

Not only that, he asked that the stakeholders can learn important lessons. They, continued Rika, were asked to obey the principles of the formation of laws, especially in an effort to improve the Job Creation Law, which was given two years.

As previously reported, the Constitutional Court has decided that Law (UU) Number 11 of 2020 concerning Job Creation is unconstitutional. The verdict was read out during the trial for the formal review of the Job Creation Law at the Constitutional Court Building, Jakarta, Thursday, November 25.

The Constitutional Court stated that the Job Creation Act was unconstitutional because it was formally flawed because the discussion process did not comply with the rules and did not meet the element of openness.

The Court considered that the merging method or the omnibus law in the Job Creation Law was not clear whether it was the making of a new law or a revision.

In addition, this law is considered not to hold the principle of openness to the public even though it has held several meetings with several parties in the process of its formation.

The reason is that the meeting is considered not to have reached the stage of the substance of the law. Likewise, the draft Law on Job Creation is also considered by the Court to be not easily accessible to the public.