Constitutional Justice M. Guntur Hamzah reads out the Court’s legal considerations during the pronouncement of the decision on the judicial review of Law Number 1 of 1970 on Work Safety, Friday (01/30/2026) in the Constitutional Court courtroom. Photo by MKRI/Ifa.
JAKARTA, (MKRI) – The Constitutional Court rejected in its entirety the petition for judicial review of Article 15 paragraph (2) of Law Number 1 of 1970 on Work Safety. Decision Number 246/PUU-XXIII/2025 was pronounced in a plenary session at the Court on Friday (01/30/2026).
The pronouncement hearing was chaired by Chief Justice Suhartoyo, accompanied by eight other Constitutional Justices. The petitioner in this case is Suhari, a private sector employee, who challenged the constitutionality of the criminal sanction provision in the Work Safety Law.
In the Court’s legal considerations read out by Constitutional Justice M. Guntur Hamzah, the Court reiterated its stance of not entering the domain of criminal policy, as it constitutes a form of limitation on individual rights and freedoms that falls entirely within the authority of the legislature. “In relation to that stance, the Court has thus far had no strong and fundamental reason to depart from such legal position. Moreover, the Petitioner, in his petitum, requests the Court to adjust criminal sanctions to current conditions so that such sanctions must be increased. A request to increase criminal sanctions in Article 15 paragraph (2) of Law Number 1 of 1970, as sought by the Petitioner, can only be carried out by the legislature,” Guntur stated.
Furthermore, Guntur noted that, in relation to the Petitioner’s arguments, the Court acknowledges that the Work Safety Law has been in force for 56 years and has never been amended or replaced. It is therefore highly possible that its substance is no longer in line with current developments and societal needs.
In this context, it is important for the legislature to monitor and review or evaluate the implementation of Law Number 1 of 1970, as mandated by Article 95A of Law Number 13 of 2022 concerning the Second Amendment to Law Number 12 of 2011 on the Formation of Laws and Regulations, in order to determine whether the Work Safety Law remains effective, efficient, and functional in accordance with present and future needs in providing protection for workers’ occupational safety.
Moreover, Law Number 1 of 1970 belongs to the same cluster as labor laws that have undergone several amendments. Therefore, the House of Representatives and the President, as lawmakers, may evaluate the regulatory substance of Law Number 1 of 1970 in line with changes in labor regulations as well as current and future developments. Accordingly, the Petitioner’s arguments are legally unfounded.
Read also:
Fines under Occupational Safety Law Deemed No Longer Relevant
Private Employee Revises Challenge to Fine Sanctions in Occupational Safety Law
At the preliminary hearing held at the Court on Wednesday (12/17/2025), Suhari (the Petitioner), a private employee, stated via online appearance that the sanctions of imprisonment for a maximum of three months or a fine of up to Rp100,000 as stipulated in Article 15 paragraph (2) of the Work Safety Law have lost their coercive and deterrent effect due to inflation and economic changes. This condition, he argued, has led employers to neglect occupational safety and health standards.
According to Suhari, 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). In addition, weak sanctions are also considered to threaten the right to a decent life and to a safe and healthy working environment as stipulated in Article 28H paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (UUD 1945).
In his petitum, Suhari requested the Court to declare Article 15 paragraph (2) of the Work Safety Law conditionally unconstitutional insofar as it is not interpreted to include an adjustment of the fine based on a price index or an update of the nominal amount by the legislature.
Explore the Case: Number 246/PUU-XXIII/2025
Author : Utami Argawati
Editor : Nur R.
Translator : N. Valentino Rahadityo/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.
The full decision can be accessed at the following link: Decision Number 246/PUU-XXIII/2025
Friday, January 30, 2026 | 11:28 WIB 55