Opinions Opinion

Reviewing "Compelling Urgency" in the Job Creation Law as an Element of Enforcing State Emergency Law

Muhammad Haaziq Bujang Syarif

Contributor

21 May 2024 · 23:52 21 May 2024 23:52 WIB 9 minutes reading time: 9 minutes 4 read

This article discusses the correlation between a State of Emergency and Perpu (Government Regulation in Lieu of Law) as a legal product born from a compelling urgency.

Reviewing "Compelling Urgency" in the Job Creation Law as an Element of Enforcing State Emergency Law

Opinion Note

This opinion article was written by a contributor/columnist. The views expressed are entirely the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors.

CONTRIBUTOR PROGRAM

You can become a columnist at Legal Literacy.

Submit your legal opinion/analysis writing. If it is published, you have the opportunity to obtain a payout/honorarium in accordance with the provisions.

Submit Article Read Guidelines

Table of Contents

Review of Articles 12 and 22 of the 1945 Constitution in the Context of a State of Emergency (Forced Urgency)
Analysis of Elements Regarding Perpu
Review of the “Compulsory” Element in the Job Creation Perpu
Conclusion
References

Legal Literacy - This article discusses a review of Articles 12 and 22 1945 Constitution in the context of a state of emergency (Forced Urgency). An in-depth analysis is carried out on the differences between the concepts of "state of danger" and "forced urgency," as well as their juridical implications. This article also evaluates the validity of Perpu in emergency situations, including the case example of the Job Creation Perpu, and presents views from legal experts. This explanation is important to understand the legal mechanisms governing state emergency actions according to the constitution.

Review of Articles 12 and 22 of the 1945 Constitution in the Context of a State of Emergency (Forced Urgency)

As a complex system, in practice the state does not only run in a state of peace without obstacles but also in a state of emergency. This emergency situation requires further regulation as an anticipatory alternative to these unexpected and undesirable things. Furthermore, these regulations are also needed for the efficiency and effectiveness of legal institutions and state institutions so that they can continue to function as they should. This is because a state of emergency is diametrically opposed to a state of peace which allows a country to run without obstacles.

Jimly in his book “Emergency Constitutional Law” as quoted from Kim Lane Scheppele describes the concept of emergency in a country. The concept of emergency is definitively described as a situation when a country is faced with a life-and-death threat that requires a responsive action that under normal circumstances cannot be justified according to the principles adopted by the country concerned.[1] In addition, Kim also added that the justification for doing things that are impossible to do under normal circumstances can only be done in extreme circumstances. In other words, the state is forced to take extraordinary actions that violate the principles it adheres to. Therefore, the state of emergency can be referred to as an extraordinary state or the state of exception. [2]

By looking at this picture, a common thread can be drawn regarding the concept of emergency in a country. First, there is a serious threat that threatens a country. Second, responsive action is needed in dealing with these threats. Third, that action cannot be taken under normal circumstances. In addition, this concept of emergency is described differently in the Indonesian constitution. The Indonesian constitution divides this state of emergency into two forms, namely a state of danger and matters of compelling urgency.

Article 12 of the 1945 Constitution refers to this state of emergency in terms of a “state of danger”. In addition, Article 22 of the 1945 Constitution refers to it as “matters of compelling urgency”. The use of different terminology has implications for differentiating the juridical implications of the two. According to Jimly, the state of danger is equivalent to the understanding of a state of emergency or state of emergency. The President can stipulate or declare a state of danger at any time because it is included in the President's authority as head of state.

Meanwhile, in Article 22 of the 1945 Constitution, the material regulated includes the President's authority in the realm of legislative power, namely the President's authority to stipulate Perpu. If examined grammatically, the phrase in Article 22 is more general than the phrase in Article 12. Article 22 which regulates compelling urgency includes a state of danger because a state of danger is compelling. Meanwhile, not all compelling urgencies are dangerous. The conclusion is that in any situation, the President can issue or stipulate a Perpu as long as it meets the requirements, even in normal circumstances.[3]

The conditions that must be met in order for a situation to be said to be a state of danger that causes compelling urgency are:

Dangerous threat or an element of a threatening threat
Reasonable necessity or the element of necessity that requires
Limited time or the element of time limitation[4]

If these three elements have been fulfilled, then a state of the country can be said to be a state of danger. However, if the first element is not fulfilled, then the situation is included in the understanding of compelling urgency. In the formation of a Perpu, there is another special requirement, namely that there is no alternative other than a Perpu in overcoming the situation.[5] Thus, if there is a Perpu that does not fulfill these elements, then the Perpu is essentially contrary to Article 22 of the 1945 Constitution.

Analysis of Elements Regarding Perpu

Perpu or Government Regulations in Lieu of Laws are legal products that receive normative attribution from the Constitution. Article 22 of the 1945 Constitution explicitly states the terminology “Government Regulations as a substitute for Laws” instead of the terminology Government Regulations in Lieu of Laws or Perpu. Furthermore, Article 22 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution emphasizes the phrase “Government Regulations” which explicitly seems to equate it with Government Regulations regulated in Article 5 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution.

Article 5 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution which states that Government Regulations or PP function as regulations that implement laws is clearly different from Article 22 of the 1945 Constitution. In Article 22, the Government Regulations in question are regulations in a state of urgency that function to accommodate material provisions that should be poured into the form of laws and replace laws.[6] The emphasis of the stipulation of Perpu is the existence of a condition of “compelling urgency” which is different from ordinary PP.

The condition of “compelling urgency” which is the consideration for the formation of this Perpu is different from the condition of “state of emergency” whose regulations are regulated in Article 12 of the 1945 Constitution. These two distinctive conditions should not be equated considering that the two conditions have been different since the formulation of the Constitution. The two articles have not changed in the first to fourth amendments. This shows that the two types of legal products are indeed regulated differently in the Constitution.

In addition, there is also a difference in the meaning of “compelling urgency” and “state of emergency”. “State of emergency” is objective in the sense that it is based on the assessment of the DPR. Meanwhile, “compelling urgency” is subjective in the sense that it is based on the President's assessment which functions to deal with an urgent situation.[7] Another difference is that Perpu is a legal product equivalent to a Law, while PP is a legal product below the Law. By looking at this explanation, PP and Perpu cannot and should not be mixed up.

Review of the “Compulsory” Element in the Job Creation Perpu

Perpu Number 2 of 2022 concerning Job Creation is a Perpu that was born from a legal loophole after decision 91/PUU-XVIII/2020 which tested Law Number 11 of 2020 concerning Job Creation. In the verdict a quo, the Job Creation Law was declared conditionally unconstitutional, that is, if it is not corrected within an interval of two years from the decision a quo spoken. However, there is an oddity in the verdict, namely that the Job Creation Law remains in effect until the time interval specified for the improvement of the Law a quo. This situation is very contradictory because the Job Creation Law is declared unconstitutional and has no binding legal force while the Law a quo declared still valid.

To overcome this, the Government issued Perpu Number 2 of 2022 which contains the same substantial material as Law Number 11 of 2020 instead of making improvements to the substance of the Law a quo. The time interval given by the Constitutional Court, which is two years, was ignored by the Government by issuing a Perpu on December 30, 2022 or 13 months after Decision 91/PUU-XVIII/2020 dated November 3, 2021. In other words, the element limited time as a cumulative condition for the formation of Perpu is not fulfilled.

The condition limited time that is not fulfilled is sufficient to be a logical reason for the unconstitutionality of the Job Creation Perpu. Formally, in the consideration “Considering” Article 22 of the 1945 Constitution is included as the legal and constitutional basis for the formation of the Perpu. However, materially, the condition for fulfilling the compelling urgency which is the formative element of the Perpu is not fulfilled. This is added in the consideration “Considering” that the stipulation of the Perpu is as an implementation of Decision 91/PUU-XVIII/2020. This is inconsistent because the Decision a quo ordered improvements to the material of the Law, not a formal transformation from Law to Perpu.

Furthermore, according to Dr. Despan Heryansyah, the global economic conditions due to COVID and the Russia-Ukraine war are not sufficient to be categorized as a reason for the establishment of the Job Creation Perpu because there are still other alternatives. The alternative in question is improving the direction of the Job Creation Law by involving public participation or public participation. Meanwhile, one of the material requirements for the formation of a Perpu is that there are no other alternatives besides the formation of a Perpu. Thus, it can be concluded that the formation of a Perpu on the grounds of threatening global economic conditions is a wrong alternative.[8]

Conclusion

Based on the explanation above, a conclusive common thread can be drawn, namely the existence of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law Number 2 of 2022 concerning Job Creation is a legal product that is not in accordance with the conditions that allow a Perpu to be issued. The compelling urgency that is the juridical basis for the enactment of the Perpu is not fulfilled. In addition, the state's condition at the time the Perpu was enacted was also not fulfilled and also violated the Constitutional Court Decision Number 91/PUU-XVIII/2020.

With the complexity of these controversial matters, what is expected is that similar incidents, namely the enactment of Perpu that does not comply with the conditions and requirements, will not happen again. This is because Perpu can be categorized as the government's ultimate step to deal with a condition where there are no other alternatives. Thus, it is unwise if legal products such as Perpu are manipulated for mere political-economic interests without regard to the interests of the public.

[1] Jimly Asshiddiqie, Emergency Constitutional Law (Jakarta: RajaGrafindo Persada, 2007); 1st printing, p. 58

[2] Ibid, p. 59

[3] Ibid, p. 206-207