| No. | Laws | Controversy |
| 1 | Omnibus Law Job Creation Law— Ratification of Job Creation Law (Omnibus Law Undang-Undang Cipta Kerja—Pengesahan Undang-Undang Cipta Kerja or UUCK) | UUCK received public scrutiny and was considered to be detrimental to the people, especially the workers. However, the DPR and the Government did not budge and finally passed the UUCK at a plenary meeting on Monday, October 5, 2020. The ratification of the UUCK omnibus law was knocked out amidst the many criticisms and scrutiny from various parties, including the following: 1) Since the discussion, the Job Creation Bill (Rancangan Undang-Undang or RUU) has reaped a number of controversies in which one of the discussion clusters has received quite a lot of rejection, namely related to the employment cluster. 2) Among the points of controversy is the abolition of the city/regency minimum wage (Upah Minimum Kota/Kabupaten or UMK) to be replaced with the provincial minimum wage (Upah Minimum Provinsi or UMP). This is considered to make workers’ wages lower. Apart from that, other points that have received a lot of attention are that workers now have the potential to become contract workers for life and are vulnerable to termination of employment or layoffs, as well as fewer hours of rest. The Confederation of Indonesian Trade Unions (Konfederasi Serikat Pekerja Indonesia or KSPI) noted that there were at least seven important issues which became the basis for rejecting the ratification plan. Starting from the plan to abolish the Sectoral Minimum Wage (Upah Minimum Sektoral or UMSK), reduce severance pay, Specific Time Work Agreements (Perjanjian Kerja Waktu Tertentu or PKWT) which can continue to be extended, and outsourcing for life without restrictions on the type of work. Then, plans for working hours which are considered too exploitative, leave rights and wage rights for leave, as well as the absence of pension and health insurance for contract and outsourced employees. Of the seven issues resulting from the agreement, workers balked. |
| 2 | Law Number 19 of 2019 concerning the Second Amendment to Law Number 30 of 2002 concerning the Corruption Eradication Commission or Undang-Undang Nomor 19 Tahun 2019 tentang Perubahan Kedua atas Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2002 tentang Komisi Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi | The first controversy began when the revision of the Corruption Eradication Commission Law (Undang-Undang Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi or UU KPK) was passed on September 17 2019. The ratification of the revision of the KPK Law also sparked large protests and demonstrations in a number of areas. This revision has the potential to weaken the KPK, which has been at the forefront of eradicating corruption. A number of points of controversy in the revision of the KPK Law are as follows: 1) The position of the KPK is in the executive branch. Even though the previous status of the KPK was an independent ad hoc institution. The change in position to become a government institution had an impact on the employment status of the KPK to become the state civil apparatus (ASN). 2) The formation of the KPK Supervisory Board is contained in seven specific articles, namely Article 37A, Article 37B, Article 37C, Article 37D, Article 37E, Article 37F, and Article 37G. In addition to overseeing the duties and powers of the KPK, the Supervisory Board is also authorized in a number of matters, including whether or not to issue permits for wiretapping, searches and/or confiscations. 3) Permission to tap. With this revision, the KPK is no longer free to wiretapping suspected corruption cases, but must have the permission of the Supervisory Board. In addition, wiretapping that has been completed must be accountable to the KPK leadership and the Supervisory Board for a maximum of 14 (fourteen) days. 4) Issuance of an order for termination of investigation (SP3) for corruption cases where the investigation and prosecution are not completed within one year. The origin of investigators and investigators. In this revision, investigators must come from the Indonesian National Police, while investigators are employees who are appointed and dismissed by the KPK. |
| 3 | Law Number 3 of 2020 concerning Amendments to Law Number 4 of 2009 concerning Mineral and Coal Mining or | A number of points in Law No. 3 of 2020 concerning Mineral and Coal Mining are considered beneficial to certain parties. One of the things that have become the focus of the public’s attention is Article 169A regarding the extension of the Contract of Work (Kontrak Karya or KK) or Coal Mining Concession Work Agreement (Perjanjian Karya Pengusahaan Pertambangan Batubara or PKP2B) without bidding. Through this article, KK and PKP2B holders who have not received an extension can get 2 (two) extensions in the form of a Special Mining Business Permit (Izin Usaha Pertambangan Khusus or IUPK), each for a maximum of 10 years. The abolition of Article 165 regarding sanctions for those who issue Mining Business Permits (Izin Usaha Pertambangan or IUP), IUPK, and People’s Mining Permits (IPR) is also considered to be contrary to the Minerba Law. In addition, the abolition of Article 45 of Law Number 4 of 2009 also allows IUP holders not to report mineral and coal results from exploration activities and feasibility studies. |
| 4 | Government Regulation in Lieu of Law Number 1 of 2020 concerning State Financial Policy and Financial System Stability for Handling the Covid-19 Pandemic and/or in the Context of Dealing with Threats that Endanger the National Economy and/or Financial System Stability or | Starting from President Jokowi issuing PERPU No. 1/2020. The issuance of the Perppu was carried out in response to the emergence of Covid-19 cases in the country since March 2 2020. Simultaneously with the issuance of the Perppu, Jokowi also issued two other regulations, namely Government Regulation Number 21 of 2020 and Presidential Decree Number 11 of 2020. Problems arose when the Perppu No. 1/2020 is considered to give state administrators the right to immunity in making decisions. This is stated in Article 27 of the regulation, whereby officials appointed to implement the policy cannot be prosecuted either civilly or criminally, as long as carrying out their duties is based on good faith. The regulations in the Perppu were then challenged by a number of parties to the Constitutional Court. However, it was finally passed in the DPR on May 12, 2020. |
| 5 | Law Number 7 of 2020 concerning the Third Amendment to Law Number 24 of 2003 concerning the Constitutional Court or | On September 1, 2020, the DPR also approved the Constitutional Court (MK) Bill to become the MK Law and was approved by all factions. Some of the points that have been changed in the Constitutional Court Law are that the term of office of MK judges, which was previously valid for five years and can be re-elected only for one subsequent term, has been abolished. This rule is replaced by Article 23 which states that MK judges can be honorably discharged if they are 70 years old. Apart from that, Article 15 also stipulates several requirements to become an MK judge, one of which is that the minimum age for MK judges is 60 years. In fact, in the previous Constitutional Court Law, the minimum age for MK judges was 47 years with a maximum age of 65 years |