Daud Salama, an ad hoc judge at the Industrial Relations Court at the Surabaya District Court, revising his petition on the judicial review of Law No. 2 of 2004 on the Settlement of Industrial Relations Disputes (UU PPHI) via videoconference on Tuesday (5/20/2025). Photo by MKRI/Panji

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held another hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 2 of 2004 on the Settlement of Industrial Relations Disputes (UU PPHI) on Tuesday, May 20, 2025. The case, No. 49/PUU-XXIII/2025, was filed by Daud Salama, an ad hoc judge at the Industrial Relations Court (PHI) at the Surabaya District Court. This hearing was held to examine the key points of revision to the petition.

Appearing online, Daud stated that he had made several adjustments to the petition. These included clarifying the Court’s authority to review the constitutionality of the provision in question, further substantiating the alleged constitutional impairment, and refining the legal argumentation. He also submitted a comparative table showing the different retirement ages for ad hoc judges in the PHI: 62 years for district court level and 67 years for the Supreme Court level, both as stipulated in the PPHI Law. By contrast, he cited the retirement age of 67 for tax court judges as determined by Constitutional Court Decision No. 6/PUU-XIV/2016.

He then read out one of the revised petitums: “We request the Court to declare that Article 67 paragraph (1) point d of the PPHI Law contradicts Article 27 paragraph (2), Article 28 paragraph (3), Article 28D paragraph (1), and Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution, insofar as it is not interpreted to mean that a ten-year term of office may still be completed even if the judge is already over 62 years old at the district court level or over 67 at the cassation level at the Supreme Court.”

The hearing was presided over by Chief Justice Suhartoyo alongside Constitutional Justices Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh and M. Guntur Hamzah.

Also read: Industrial Relations Ad Hoc Judge Questions Retirement Age

At the preliminary hearing on Wednesday, May 7, 2025, the Petitioner asserted that Article 60 paragraph (1) point b and Article 67 paragraph (1) point d of the PPHI Law contradict the constitutional rights to fair employment opportunity as guaranteed under Article 27 paragraph (2), Article 28 paragraph (3), Article 28D paragraph (1), and Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. He argued that the age limit of 62 imposed by the said provision deprived him of the equal opportunity to continue serving as an ad hoc judge.

As a comparison, the Petitioner referred to the retirement age of ad hoc judges at the Corruption Court, which is higher.

Therefore, the Petitioner requested that the Court declare the articles in question unconstitutional and not legally binding. He asked the Court to grant ad hoc judges of the Industrial Relations Court the right to serve beyond the current retirement age, provided they remain mentally and physically fit during their five-year terms and possible extensions. Furthermore, he asked the Court to annul Article 60 paragraph (1) point b and Article 67 paragraph (1) point d, which stipulates the retirement age of 62 for district-level ad hoc judges and 67 for those serving at the Supreme Court.

Author: Sri Pujianti
Editor: Nur R.
PR: Fauzan F.

Translator: Yuanna Sisilia

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.

 

---