Ad hoc judge of the Industrial Relations Court at Surabaya District Court Daud Salama challenging Law No. 2 of 2004 on Industrial Relations Disputes Settlement, Wednesday (5/7/2025). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — Daud Salama, an ad hoc judge of the industrial relations court at the Surabaya District Court, has filed a material judicial review petition of Law No. 2 of 2004 on Industrial Relations Disputes Settlement (PPHI Law) to the Constitutional Court (MK). The preliminary hearing for case No. 49/PUU-XXIII/2025 took place on Wednesday, May 7, 2025 in the plenary courtroom.

Before Chief Justice Suhartoyo and Constitutional Justices Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh and M. Guntur Hamzah, the Petitioner argued that Article 60 paragraph (1) letter b and Article 67 paragraph (1) letter d of the PPHI Law are contrary to Article 27 paragraph (2), Article 28 paragraph (3), Article 28D paragraph (1), and Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution.

He believes the retirement age of 62 in e 67 paragraph (1) letter d of the PPHI Law has kept him from having equal opportunity to serve as an ad hoc judge. He compared it to the retirement age of ad hoc judges on corruption cases.

“For ad hoc judges in the corruption court, there is no retirement age, while for those in the industrial relations court, there is. Therefore, this provision is against the Constitution, especially Article Article 28 paragraph (3), Article 28D paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution, which is the fundamental protection of human rights for working based on (the Petitioner’s) expertise,” he explained.

The Petitioner requested that the Court grant the entire petition, that ad hoc judges in the industrial relations court would not have a retirement age and may serve on the condition of physical and psychological fitness for five years and may be extended. He also asked the Court to declare unconstitutional and not legally binding: Article 60 paragraph (1) letter b for ad hoc judges, Article 67 paragraph (1) letter d for ad hoc judges in the industrial relations court who have reached 62 years of age and 67 years of age for ad hoc judges in the Supreme Court.

Justices’ Advice

In response to the petition, Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh advised the Petitioner to study Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK) No. 2 of 2021, which details the format of the judicial review petition. He also urged the Petitioner to complete the explanation of his legal standing, especially on the contradiction between the norms in the Law and the 1945 Constitution.

“The more articles used as basis, the more explanation on the contradiction with the norms. The petition has not elaborate the correlation between the Government Regulation (PP) No. 20 of 2016 and this petition, because the Court only review laws against the 1945 Constitution. In the subject matter, observe the Court’s decision that states that ad hoc judges are not state officials. Please review the Court’s stance on this matter,” Justice Foekh explained.

Meanwhile, Justice Guntur suggested that the provision on the retirement age of ad hoc judges in other courts be elaborated. “Not only ad hoc judges in the corruption court. Make a table and detail the upper and lower age limits. This can be considered, with a table, we can compare between ad hoc judges, not definitive judges,” he explained.

Before adjourning the session, Chief Justice Suhartoyo announced that the Petitioner would have 14 days to revise the petition. The revised petition must be submitted to the Registrar’s Office by Tuesday, May 20, 2025, after which the next hearing will be scheduled to hear the revisions.

Read the petition for case No. 49/PUU-XXIII/2025 here.

Author       : Sri Pujianti
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Fauzan F.
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian versions, the Indonesian version will prevail.

---