Constitutional Issues of the Job Creation Law and Government Regulation in Lieu of Law Number 2 of 2022 from a Constitutional Theory Perspective
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15294/ipmhi.v5i2.40755Keywords:
Constitutional Emergency Powers, Constitutional Supremacy, omnibus lawAbstract
This article examines the non-ideal formation of Law Number 11 of 2020 on Job Creation and the issuance of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law Number 2 of 2022 on Job Creation from the perspective of constitutional theory and the doctrine of state of emergency. The study focuses on the constitutional problems arising from the omnibus law method, which lacks a clear normative basis within the Indonesian legal system, as well as the use of presidential emergency powers that do not fully satisfy the constitutional requirement of a “compelling urgency” as stipulated in Article 22 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. Employing normative legal research with statutory, conceptual, and case approaches—particularly through the analysis of Constitutional Court Decision Number 91/PUU-XVIII/2020 and Decision Number 138/PUU-VII/2009—this article finds that the formation of the Job Creation Law suffers from formal constitutional defects due to limited public participation and deviations from deliberative democratic principles. Furthermore, the issuance of the Job Creation Perppu potentially expands executive discretion and undermines the principles of limited government and constitutional supremacy. Accordingly, this article underscores the necessity of restructuring the legal framework governing omnibus legislation, strictly limiting the use of emergency regulations, and reinforcing respect for Constitutional Court decisions as the cornerstone of Indonesia’s constitutional democracy.
References
Adenfa, Alexandrio. “Omnibus Law Di Indonesia: Perbandingan Hukum Kenegaraan.” Jurnal Hukum Adigama 4, no. 2 (2021): 2019–41. https://doi.org/10.24912/adigama.v4i2.17143
Aryanto, Bayu. “Demokrasi Deliberatif Dalam Konsep Amandemen Konstitusi Indonesia.” Mulawarman Law Review 5, no. 2 (2020): 96–113. https://doi.org/10.30872/mulrev.v5i2.366
Bachmid, Fahri. “Pembentukan Peraturan Pemerintah Pengganti Undang-Undang Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 91/PUU-XVIII/2020.” Reformasi 13, no. 2 (2023): 195–203. https://doi.org/10.33366/rfr.v13i2.4479
Gusthomi, Moh imam. “Studi Kreatifitas: Perbandingan Konsep Sistem Omnibus Law Undang-Undang Cipta Kerja Di Indonesia Dan Konsep Sistem Omnibus Law Di Amerika.” Journal of Creative Attitudes Culture 3, no. 2 (2022): 74–78. https://www.journalofdiversity.com/index.php/jcac/article/view/71
Hanggara, Lalu Hedwin. “Diskursus Keberlakuan UU Cipta Kerja Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 91/PUU-XVIII/2020.” Al-Qisth Law Review 5, no. 2 (2022): 233. https://doi.org/10.24853/al-qisth.5.2.233-260
Haq, Muhammad Fakhrul, Kukuh Sudarmanto, Zaenal Arifin, Muhammad Junaidi, Albertus Heru Nuswanto, and Rati Riana. “Eksistensi Perppu No. 2 Tahun 2022 Tentang Cipta Kerja Pasca Dikeluarkannya Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 91/PUU-XVIII/2020.” JURNAL USM LAW REVIEW 8, no. 2 (2025): 991–1005. https://doi.org/10.26623/julr.v8i2.11068
Izzati, Nabiyla Risfa. “Kepastian Hukum vs Ketidakpastian Kerja: Substansi Ketenagakerjaan Dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 6 Tahun 2023 Tentang Cipta Kerja.” Jurnal Hukum Ius Quia Iustum 31, no. 2 (2024): 384–407. https://doi.org/10.20885/iustum.vol31.iss2.art7
Maulidi, Mohammad Agus. “Tafsir Konstitusional: Kriteria Pembentukan Peraturan Pemerintah Pengganti Undang-Undang Dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi (2003-2023): Constitutional Interpretation: Criteria for the Issuance of Government Regulations in Lieu of Law in Constitutional Court Decisions (2003-2023).” Jurnal Konstitusi 22, no. 2 (2025): 293–312. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk2224
Monteiro, Josef Mario. “Penyusunan Undang-Undang Melalui Metode Omnibus Law Dan Consolidation Law.” Strata Law Review 1, no. 1 (2023): 24–42. https://journals.stratapersada.com/index.php/slr/article/view/v1no24-42
Rachman, AA Muhammad Insany, Evi dwi Hastri, and Rusfandi Rusfandi. “Tinjauan Penetapan Perpu Nomor 2 Tahun 2022 Tentang Cipta Kerja Dalam Perspektif Sosiologi Hukum.” Jurnal Panah Keadilan 2, no. 1 (2023): 41–51. https://doi.org/10.22304/pjih.v11n3.a4
Siregar, Fritz Edwadr. “Indonesia Constitutional Court Constitutional Interpretation Methodology (2003-2008).” Constitutional Review 1, no. 1 (2015): 1–27. https://doi.org/10.31078/consrev111
Suhardin, Yohanes, and Henny Saida Flora. “Eksistensi Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Pasca Disahkannya Undang-Undang Penetapan Perpu Cipta Kerja.” Jurnal USM Law Review 6, no. 1 (2023): 320–31. https://doi.org/10.26623/julr.v6i1.6307
Suryati, Suryati, Ramanata Disurya, and Layang Sardana. “Tinjauan Hukum Terhadap Omnibus Law Undang-Undang Cipta Kerja.” Simbur Cahaya, 2021, 97–111. https://doi.org/10.28946/sc.v28i2.902
Tamimi, Farid Hanif, Nabila Chairunisa, Raymuna Rizki Amelia, Siti Fatimahtul Az Zahra, and Zulva Natasya Ramadhani. Polemik UU Cipta Kerja 2020 Dan Otoritarianisme Demokratis: Telaah Ilmu Politik Dan Teori Habermas Pada Kasus UU Cipta Kerja. n.d. https://www.academia.edu/145277171/Polemik_UU_Cipta_Kerja_2020_dan_Otoritarianisme_Demokratis_Telaah_Ilmu_Politik_dan_Teori_Habermas_pada_Kasus_UU_Cipta_Kerja
Tushnet, Mark. “Constitutional Hardball.” Forthcoming, Cambridge Handbook of ConstitutionalThoery (J. King & R. Bellamy Eds.), Harvard Public Law Working Paper, nos. 21–37 (2021).
