No-Spouse Employment and the Problem of the Constitutional Court of Indonesia

  • I. Gede YUSA Department of Constitutional Law, Faculty of Law, Udayana University, Indonesia
  • Bagus HERMANTO Department of Constitutional Law, Faculty of Law, Udayana University, Indonesia
  • Nyoman Mas ARYANI Department of Constitutional Law, Faculty of Law, Udayana University, Indonesia

Abstract

The role of Constitutional Court as the protector of human rights related with the effort to guarantee the human rights also the worker’s rights with their decision. The decision in this study related with constitutionality of no-spouse employment norms. This study aims to examine the constitutionality aspects related with no-spouse employment policy related with human rightsor worker rights. This study is using statutory approach, conceptual approach and comparative studies concerning no-spouse employment policy. The results show that no-spouse employment policy is contrary with the Constitution and human rights legal instruments. Moreover, there is problem concerning the Decision of the Constitutional Court of Indonesia on the one hand is final and binding but non-executable automatically. This study to encourage the new paradigm to ensure the execution of the Decision of the Constitutional Court of Indonesia, in this context related with decision on the constitutionality no-spouse employment norms.


 

References

[1] Bedner, A. 2013. Indonesian Legal Scholarship and Jurisprudence as an Obstacle for Transplanting Legal Institutions. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, 5(2), 264.
[2] Balabiyev, K., et al. 2016. Improvement of Legislation and the Judicial System as the Guarantor of Political Stability of the Constitutional State, Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics, (Volume VII, Winter), 7(21): 1615 – 1625.
[3] Benny, R., Sargeant, M., Jefferson, M. 2008. Questions and Answers Employment Law. Oxford University Press.
[4] Boyd, C. 2010. The debate over the prohibition of romance in the workplace. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(2), 325–338.
[5] Dobbins, J.C. 2009. Structure and precedent. Mich. L. Rev., 108, 1453.
[6] Dominic, J. Nardi. 2018. Can NGOs Change the Constitution? Civil Society and the Indonesian Constitutional Court, Contemporary Southeast Asia, 40(2), 251-252.
[7] Dressel, B., Bünte, M. 2014. Constitutional politics in Southeast Asia: From contestation to constitutionalism? Contemporary Southeast Asia: A Journal of International and Strategic Affairs, 36(1), 1–22.
[8] Eddyono, L.W. 2016. The First Ten Years Of The Constitutional Court Of Indonesia: The Establishment Of The Principle Of Equality And The Prohibition Of Discrimination. Constitutional Review, 1(2), 119–146.
[9] Faqih, M. 2016. Nilai-Nilai Filosofi Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Yang Final dan Mengikat. Jurnal Konstitusi, 7(3), 097-118. https://doi.org/10.31078/JK%X .
[10] Ryszhanova, G, Kozhakhmetov, G. 2018. Contemporary Issues of the Judiciary’s Development, Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics, Volume IX, Winter 7(37): 2425 – 2430.
[11] Ghofur, J. 2009. Membangun Sinergitas Mahkamah Konstitusi dengan Lembaga Legislatif dan Eksekutif. Jurnal Konstitusi, 3.
[12] Ginsburg, T., Elkins, Z. 2008. Ancillary Powers of Constitutional Courts. Tex. L. Rev., 87, 1431.
[13] Hadiprayitno, I.I. 2010. Defensive enforcement: Human rights in Indonesia. Human Rights Review, 11(3), 373–399.
[14] Handayani, S.W. 2016. Jaminan pemerintah Negara Republik Indonesia terhadap penyelenggaraan serikat pekerja sebagai hak azasi manusia. Jurnal Kosmik Hukum, 16(1).
[15] Hermanto, B., Aryani, M. 2019. Gagasan Pengaturan Yang Ideal Penyelesaian Yudisial Maupun Ekstrayudisial Pelanggaran Hak Asasi Manusia di Indonesia. Jurnal Legislasi Indonesia, 15(4), 369–383.
[16] Hermanto, B., Yusa, I.G. 2018. Children Rights and the Age Limit: The Ruling of The Indonesian Constitutional Court. Kertha Patrika, 40(2).
[17] Howard, J.L. 2008. Balancing conflicts of interest when employing spouses. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 20(1), 29–43.
[18] Marshfield, J.L. 2018. The Amendment Effect, Boston University Law Review, 98(1), 74.
[19] Karmaza, O.O. 2018. The Protection of Civil Rights and Interests in the Court. Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics, Volume IX, Winter, 8(38): 2622 – 2630.
[20] Laksono, F., Sudarsono, S., Hidayat, A., Safaat, M.A. 2018. Relation between the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia and the Legislators according to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. Constitutional Review, 3(2), 141–170.
[21] Maulidi, M.A. 2017. Problematika Hukum implementasi Putusan Final dan Mengikat Mahkamah Konstitusi Perspektif Negara Hukum. Ius Quia Iustum Law Journal, 24(4), 535–557.
[22] Mietzner, M. 2010. Political Conflict Resolution and Democratic Consolidation in Indonesia: The Role of the Constitutional Court, Journal of East Asian Studies, 10(3), 417.
[23] Safta, M. 2012. Developments in the Constitutional Review: Constitutional Court between the Status of Negative Legislator and the Status of Positive Co-Legislator, Perspective of Business Law Journal, 1(1), 1.
[24] Shapiro, M. 2013. Role Constitutional Court and Problem in Field Constitutional Court, Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 20(1), 253.
[25] Novenanty, W.M. 2016. Pembatasan Hak Untuk Menikah Antara Pekerja Dalam Satu Perusahaan. Veritas et Justitia, 2(1), 60–85.
[26] Omara, A. 2018. The Indonesian Constitutional Court and the Democratic Institutions in Judicial Review. Constitutional Review, 3(2), 189–207.
[27] Philips, J. 2014. On setting priorities among human rights. Human Rights Review, 15(3), 239–257.
[28] Prang, A.J. 2011. Implikasi Hukum Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi. Kanun: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, 13(1), 77–94.
[29] Runtuwene, T.B.V. 2015. Kajian Yuridis Atas Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 34/PUU-Xi/2013 Dan Surat Edaran Mahkamah Agung Nomor 7 Tahun 2014 Ditinjau Dari Keadilan Dan Kepastian Hukum Terhadap Peninjauan Kembali. Lex Administratum, 3(4).
[30] Safaat, M.A., Widiarto, A.E., Suroso, F.L. 2017. Pola Penafsiran Konstitusi dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Periode 2003-2008 dan 2009-2013. Jurnal Konstitusi, 14(2), 234–261.
[31] Second Division Decision of the Supreme Court of Philippines G.R. No. 164774, April 12, 2006 concerning Star Paper Corporation, Josephine Ongsitco and Sebastian Chua, Petitioners, vs. Ronaldo D. Simbol, Wilfreda N. Comia and Lorna E. Estrella, Respondents.
[32] School, C.L. 2007. Employment Law in Practice. Oxford University Press, USA.
[33] Setiyono, B., Chalmers, I. 2018. Labor protection policy in a Third World Economy: The case of Indonesia. Development and Society, 47(1), 139–158.
[34] Simmons, B. 2009. Civil Rights in International Law : Compliance with Aspects of the ‘International Bill of Rights’, Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 16(2), 437.
[35] Murray Li, T. 2017. The Price of Un/Freedom: Indonesia's Colonial and Contemporary Plantation Labor Regimes, Comparative Studies in Society in History, 59(2), 259.
[36] The Decision of the Constitutional Court of Indonesia Number 13/PUU-XV/2017 concerning the constitutional review of the Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 13 Year 2003 regarding Employment was pronounced on 14 December 2017.
[37] Ginsburg, T. 2003. Judicial Review in New Democracies. Cambridge University Press.
[38] Tomkina, O.O., Yakovliev, A.A. 2018. Issues of the Modern Constitutional Process: the Moral Foundations of Public Authority (in the Aspect of Legal Guarantees of Democracy), Economics, IX, Winter 7(37), 2447-2453.
[39] Tomuschat, C. 2014. Human rights: between idealism and realism. OUP Oxford.
[40] Winata, M.R., Putri, I.P. 2019. Penegakan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 13/PUU-XV/2017 Mengenai Hak Mendapatkan Pekerjaan dan Hak Membentuk Keluarga. Jurnal Konstitusi, 15(4), 858–880.
Published
2020-03-31
How to Cite
YUSA, I. Gede; HERMANTO, Bagus; ARYANI, Nyoman Mas. No-Spouse Employment and the Problem of the Constitutional Court of Indonesia. Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics, [S.l.], v. 11, n. 1, p. 214 – 226, mar. 2020. ISSN 2068-696X. Available at: <https://journals.aserspublishing.eu/jarle/article/view/4773>. Date accessed: 06 aug. 2020. doi: https://doi.org/10.14505//jarle.v11.1(47).26.