A Variety of Arguments to Smooth Over Job Creation Bill

Amid widespread opposition from the public, the government and the House have put forth a variety of propositions to accelerate the deliberation of the omnibus bill on job creation to smooth is passage into law.

Kompas/Wawan H Prabowo

The DPR Plenary Meeting at the Parliament Complex, Senayan, Jakarta, Monday (5/10/2020). One of the agenda items is the approval of the Job Creation Bill

Amid widespread opposition from the public, the government and the House of Representatives (DPR) have put forth a variety of propositions to accelerate the deliberation of the omnibus bill on job creation to smooth is passage into law. Now that the bill has been enacted, the public\'s hopes rest in the Constitutional Court.

The omnibus bill on job creation, which has received widespread public opposition, has been finally passed into law by the House of Representatives. The public appears to have been "tricked", because the House Deliberative Council decided in a matter of hours to hold a plenary meeting earlier than planned on Monday (5/10/2020) to close the first session of the 2020-2021 DPR and pass the bill at the same time.

Much of the information circulating earlier mentioned that the House had set 8 Oct. 2020 as the date for the plenary meeting to end its session for 2020-2021 and to approve the controversial bill.

Also read: House and Government Convinced

Workers’ unions stated earlier in an official statement that they would hold a nationwide strike and street protests for three days over 6-8 Oct. in response to the House’s plan to pass the omnibus bill on job creation. However, labor unions and other civil society groups felt they had been fooled because the bill was passed into law on 5 Oct. instead, much earlier than they had been led to believe.

When workers’ groups arrived at the House in Jakarta on 5 Oct. to hold their protest ahead of schedule, they were incepted by the police.

In a confidential telegram published on 2 Oct., National Police chief Gen. Idham Azis prohibited the workers from holding the rally. Public safety and security was deemed to be the highest consideration. Preventing the spread of Covid-19 was the basis of the National Police’s decision.

Also read: Extra Paradox in the Middle of a Recession

KOMPAS/MACHRADIN WAHYUDI RITONGA

Students march on Tuesday (6/10/2020) from Jl. Wastukencana to Jl. Tamansari in Bandung municipality, West Java. They were part of a mass rally involving thousands of students who marched from Jl. Diponegoro to the Pasupati overpass and then to Jl. Cihampelas to protest Monday’s enactment of the omnibus bill on job creation, which labor unions and activists have deemed a setback in workers’ rights and environmental protection.

The rationale of public safety and security is logical. However, the House lawmakers unfortunately did not use the same rationale when they began deliberating the bill in the middle of the Covid-19 epidemic. Since the beginning of the deliberation, the people have repeatedly pointed out that the proposed bill on job creation was not a public need at this time. The people needed the House and the government to focus on handling the epidemic and not legislation that had nothing to do with Covid-19.

However, the government argued that the bill was necessary to anticipate the impacts of the pandemic on investment and job creation. In fact, the bill was submitted before the first Covid-19 cases were announced in March 2020. The government submitted bill to the House on 12 Feb.

House lawmaker Rieke Diah Pitaloka of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) faction, who was the deputy chair of the House Legislation Body (Baleg) at the time, questioned the urgency of deliberating the bill during a hearing on 14 April 2020 with Coordinating Economic Minister Airlangga Hartarto. This was because the bill was drafted before the pandemic emerged.

Also read: Job Creation Bill Not a Solution

In later developments, however, the fundamental question on the urgency of deliberating the job creation bill in the midst of a pandemic had disappeared. No other House lawmaker challenged the government\'s argument that the bill was needed to respond to Covid-19, and not for other interests. The government pushed to speed up the deliberation so it would be completed in 100 days.

Baleg chairman Supratman Andi Agtas emphasized on several occasions that there was no targeted date for completing the bill. However, in actuality, the deliberation continued without pause as though it was trying to meet a target. Baleg did not even halt the deliberation on the job creation bill during two House recesses. The recesses that lawmakers should have used to visit their electoral districts were instead used for meetings on the bill. Not infrequently, the deliberation went on until midnight. The bill’s deliberation even continued on holidays, Saturdays and Sundays.

"The deliberation has no target. The deliberation continued during the recesses solely in consideration of the capacity and capabilities of Baleg. Because, [see], there are thousands of DIM. How long will that take if [they] aren’t deliberated,” Supratman said, referring to the inventory of issues (DIM) in a particular draft law.

KOMPAS/KRISTIAN OKA PRASETYADI

A student holds up a poster opposing the Omnibus Law on Job Creation that calls it “the bill of the oligarchy”, during a student rally on Tuesday (6/10/2020) in Manado, North Sulawesi. The student protesters said they would continue their demonstration until the controversial law, which was passed on Monday, was revoked.

Provisions on labor

In justifying the accelerated deliberation of the omnibus bill on job creation, Baleg could have argued that the deliberation of a bill must be completed in three House sessions. If not, the deliberation could be halted or even be transferred to other complementary organs (AKD) in the House.

The pretexts for the accelerated deliberation have been thorough. The omnibus bill on job creation, which deliberates partial changes to 79 cross-sectional laws, was bulldozed in six months of work, almost without heeding public calls to postpone the deliberation, or at the very least remove the sensitive issues from the deliberation, in particular those related to labor.

Also read: The Political Dimension of the Omnibus Law

As the deliberation neared the finish line, the labor issues were discussed, even though President Joko Widodo had asked earlier that these issues be postponed.

It is also unclear why this “cluster“ of provisions was finally discussed at the end of September. This cluster was discussed for the first time on Friday, 26 Sept. In the end, this sensitive cluster of legal provisions took just three days to discuss thoroughly, from 26 to 28 Sept.

Covid-19 cases in the House

After discussions on the labor provisions were complete, the deliberation of the omnibus bill on job creation came to a close. The bill then passed the first-stage agreement to proceed to a House plenary meeting for final approval. Prior to the plenary meeting, the schedule for approving the bill must first be discussed by the House Deliberative Council, which includes members of the House leadership, faction leaders, and other officials.

During that meeting, another reason for accelerating approval of the bill was conveyed. The House leaders said that risk of Covid-19 transmission in the House was increasing. Many lawmakers and their staff had already contracted Covid-19. The House leaders proposed moving ahead the plenary meeting to close of the first House session of 2020-2021 from 8 Oct. to Monday, 5 Oct. This meant that the job creation bill must be approved before proceeding to the agenda for closing the House session.

KOMPAS/AGUS SUSANTO

Factory workers strike on Tuesday (6/10/2020) at the MM2100 industrial complex in Cikarang, West Java. The workers are part of 32 labor unions and confederations that are planning to strike from 6 to 8 Oct. to protest the omnibus bill on job creation, which the House of Representatives and the government enacted on Monday

A debate ensued regarding the matter, including a request from the Democratic Party and the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) to postpone approving the bill. However, the majority of House factions – a total of seven factions – had already agreed to ratify the bill on that day.

According to interim chairman Saleh Partaonan Daulay of the PAN faction, concern over the widespread transmission of Covid-19 in the House had emerged in the past two weeks.

”Since two weeks ago, the House planned to impose a lockdown, but it did not happen," he said.

Looking to the Constitutional Court

That there are pros and cons of the bill is usual. The omnibus law on job creation was not the only law with pros and cons, but also other laws

Now that the omnibus bill on job creation has been passed into law, the public is placing its hopes in the Constitutional Court (MK). A number of civil society groups are preparing to challenge the newly passed law through a constitutional test at the court. One of these groups is the Consortium for Agrarian Reform (KPA).

House deputy chairman Azis Syamsuddin, who hails from the Golkar faction, said on Tuesday (6/10) that anyone could challenge the new law at the Constitutional Court. However, according to him, the House and the government had made their utmost efforts in deliberating the bill.

Also read: The Omnibus Law for the People

"That there are pros and cons of the bill is usual. The omnibus law on job creation was not the only law with pros and cons, but also other laws,” he said.

KOMPAS/RONY ARIYANTO NUGROHO

A member of the Indonesian Muslim Workers Brotherhood (PPMI) holds up a poster on Tuesday (6/10/2020) during a mass rally on Jl. Raya Bogor in Cibinong, Bogor regency, West Java. The poster calls for mass protests against the job creation omnibus law from 5-8 Oct. 2020 at the Senayan legislative complex in Jakarta.

According to political science lecturer Ubedilah Badrun at the State University of Jakarta, requesting the Constitutional Court to review the new law was be the most constitutional approach that was available to the public.

"As long as the court sides with the people, it will find weaknesses in the substance of the omnibus law on job creation. But if it sides with the oligarchy, this would be an extraordinary setback for our democracy,” he said.

The omnibus law on job creation, according to Ubedilah, reflected the failure of the House as representatives of the people. The House should adopt the best decision-making practices in a democratic country, which was to listen to the aspirations of the public. However, neither the House nor the government had employed this practice. Now, the public was seeing that the national interest and the public interest were not the primary interest of the House or the government.

Yes, if [the people] have no trust, they will not [reelect] them.

"They no longer represent the people, but are trapped in the interests of the economic oligarchy that surround them during an election. This can be seen in the link between high political spending and the birth of the political elite as inseparable from the oligarchic group that possesses capital,” said Ubedilah.

Regarding the likelihood that the public no longer had trust in the House, Azis Syamsuddin responded calmly.

"Yes, if [the people] have no trust, they will not [reelect] them. As long as the people vote for [a lawmaker] at the 2024 General Election, they will rejoin the House, right? It is the people who will judge them,” he said. (RINI KUSTIASIH/NIKOLAUS HARBOWO)