On Wednesday (12/17/2025), Suhari, as the Petitioner, presented the principal arguments of his petition online during a hearing on the judicial review of Law Number 1 of 1970 on Occupational Safety. Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

JAKARTA, (MKRI) – The Constitutional Court held a preliminary examination hearing for Petition Number 246/PUU-XXIII/2025 on Wednesday (12/17/2025). The petition was filed by Suhari, a private-sector employee, who challenged Article 15 paragraph (2) of Law Number 1 of 1970 on Occupational Safety.

The hearing was presided over by Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat, accompanied by Constitutional Justices Enny Nurbaningsih and M. Guntur Hamzah. Suhari (the Petitioner), who attended the hearing online, asserted that he has legal standing, as he is directly and continuously subject to the Occupational Safety Law in the course of his work activities.

The Petitioner argued that the sanctions stipulated in Article 15 paragraph (2) of the Occupational Safety Law—namely a maximum imprisonment of three months or a fine of up to Rp100,000—are no longer relevant and are disproportionate under present conditions.

“The amount of the fine, which has been set since 1970, has been eroded by inflation and economic changes, thereby losing its coercive force and deterrent effect on employers,” he stated.

The Petitioner contended that the provision violates the right to fair legal certainty as guaranteed under Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (UUD 1945). Furthermore, the weakness of the sanctions was also deemed to threaten the right to live in prosperity and to obtain a healthy and safe working environment as guaranteed by Article 28H paragraph (1) of the UUD 1945, as employers tend to disregard occupational safety and health (OSH) standards.

The Petitioner emphasized that there is a causal relationship (causal verband) between the enforcement of the a quo provision and the constitutional harm he has suffered, as the leniency of the sanctions exposes workers to the risk of working in unsafe environments.

In his petitum, the Petitioner did not seek the annulment of Law Number 1 of 1970 in its entirety, but instead requested that Article 15 paragraph (2) be declared conditionally unconstitutional, insofar as it is not interpreted to require an adjustment of the fine amount based on price indices or an обновление of the nominal value by the legislature.

Constitutional Justice M. Guntur Hamzah advised the Petitioner to revise and elaborate the petition with more detailed reasoning. “Mr. Suhari views the current condition as being caused by Article 15 paragraph (2). This must be explained more clearly—what exactly has been felt and experienced that makes it necessary to challenge the provision,” Guntur remarked.

In addition, Guntur emphasized the importance of clarifying the causal relationship between the challenged norm and the potential threats to the Petitioner’s occupational safety and health. According to him, such explanations need to be strengthened so that the Court can objectively assess the relevance of the a quo provision to the constitutional rights guaranteed under the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.

The Constitutional Court granted the Petitioner 14 days to revise and improve the petition. The revised petition must be submitted to the Court no later than Tuesday, 12/30/2025.

Case Tracker: Number 246/PUU-XXIII/2025

Author             : Utami Argawati

Editor              : Nur R.

Translator       : Agusweka Poltak Siregar

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 prevails.

---