Donaldy Christian Langgar delivering the revisions to his petition against Law No. 39 of 1999 on Human Rights for case No. 206/PUU-XXIII/2025, Thursday (11/20/2025). Photo by MKRI/M. Nur.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held the second hearing for the material judicial review of Article 5 paragraph (2) of Law No. 39 of 1999 on Human Rights against the 1945 Constitution. The pretition revisions for Case No. 206/PUU-XXIII/2025 was heard on Thursday, November 20, 2025 by a panel chaired by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra.

At the hearing, Donaldy Christian Langgar as Petitioner presented his revisions to the petition. He explained that he had revised the explanation of Article 2 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Regulation No. 7 of 2025, which stipulates that the objects of judicial review are laws and government regulations in lieu of laws (also known as perppu).

He also presented the revision to the explanation of his legal standing as a justice seeker. “I revised almost the entirety of letter a on the section about the Petitioner, Your Honors. Including the petitums,” he said before the panel of justices.

Also read: Petitioner Criticizes Court Bias, Challenges Human Rights Law

The Petitioner has previously stated that the application of Article 5 paragraph (2) of the Human Rights Law had caused him harm as a justice seeker. He argued that judicial proceedings were slow, convoluted, and resulted in both material and immaterial losses.

“[I] suffered losses in time and cost due to a prolonged execution process. The material loss amounted to Rp14.6 million from withheld wages during the delay in execution,” he said.

The Petitioner revealed that the rigid and inflexible judicial system had disadvantaged justice seekers. He believed that overlapping regulations led to inconsistencies in law enforcement and the potential for biased courts. “The Petitioner experienced a subjective and partial court,” he told the panel of justices.

He also recounted his experience since 2019 when he first filed a case, noting differences between in-person and online registration procedures, which caused his case to be initially rejected.

In his petition, the Petitioner explained that Article 5 paragraph (2) of the Human Rights Law, which guarantees every person the right to assistance and protection from an objective and impartial court, had not been fully implemented in practice. According to him, this contradicts Article 28H paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution, which provides that “Every person shall have the right to receive facilities and special treatment to obtain equal opportunities and benefits in order to achieve equality and justice.”

The Petitioner also referred to provisions under Law No. 13 of 2003 on Manpower, particularly concerning the probationary period of employment, which he argued failed to ensure certainty in the employment relationship between workers and employers and was inconsistent with ILO Convention No. 189 of 2011 on Decent Work for Domestic Workers.

Author         : Utami Argawati
Editor          : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR              : Andhini S.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.

---