Petition on Lecturer Service Age Limit Declared Inadmissible

The Petitioner during the Pronouncement of Judgment hearing for Case Number 39/PUU-XXIV/2026 on the judicial review of Law Number 14 of 2005 concerning Teachers and Lecturers, Monday (03/02/2026). Photo by MKRI/Bay.

JAKARTA, (MKRI) – The Constitutional Court held a hearing for the pronouncement of Decision Number 39/PUU-XXIV/2026 concerning the judicial review of Article 67 paragraph (5) of Law Number 14 of 2005 on Teachers and Lecturers, on Monday (03/02/2026) in the Court’s plenary courtroom. In its ruling, the Court declared the petition filed by emeritus professor M. Havidz Aima inadmissible.

Constitutional Justice Ridwan Mansyur, in reading the Court’s legal considerations, stated that the Court did not find any elaboration of the alleged contradiction between Article 67 paragraph (5) of Law Number 14 of 2005 and the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (UUD 1945). The Petitioner merely mentioned that he was testing the provision against, among others, Article 27 paragraph (2), Article 28C paragraph (2), Article 28D paragraph (1), and Article 28D paragraph (2) of the UUD 1945 in the posita section.

“The Petitioner should have clearly elaborated, in the reasoning of the petition, the contradiction between the norm being tested—in casu Article 67 paragraph (5) of Law Number 14 of 2005—and the provisions of the 1945 Constitution used as the basis of review. In this regard, the Court did not find a clear explanation demonstrating such contradiction,” Ridwan stated.

With respect to the reasoning of the petition, the Court held that the arguments were not aligned with the Petitioner’s petitum. In petitum point 2, the Petitioner requested the Court to declare the phrase “up to 70 years” in Article 67 paragraph (5) of the Teachers and Lecturers Law contrary to the UUD 1945 and conditionally unconstitutional insofar as it is interpreted as an absolute age limit resulting in the automatic termination of a professor’s service without objective evaluation. Meanwhile, in petitum point 3, the Petitioner requested that the phrase “up to 70 years” be declared conditionally constitutional, allowing professors aged 70 to continue their service based on objective evaluation of academic competence, physical and mental health, professional integrity, and institutional needs.

Furthermore, in petitum point 4, the Petitioner requested the Court to order that Article 67 paragraph (5) be applied in accordance with the constitutional interpretation as set out in the ruling. The Court considered such formulation to be contradictory and uncommon.

Emeritus Professor Refines Petition on Age Limit for Professorial Service

For context, emeritus professor M. Havidz Aima filed a judicial review of Article 67 paragraph (5) of the Teachers and Lecturers Law before the Court, challenging the provision that sets the maximum service age of professors at 70 years. The enforcement of Article 67 paragraph (5), particularly the phrase “up to 70 (seventy) years,” is argued to limit the Petitioner’s academic service solely based on age, despite the Petitioner remaining healthy, competent, and needed by the institution.

Article 67 paragraph (5) of Law Number 14 of 2005 states: “Distinguished professors may have their retirement age extended up to 70 (seventy) years.”

According to the Petitioner, the age limitation removes the right to work solely based on age rather than actual performance or capability. On that basis, the Petitioner argued that the provision is contrary to the UUD 1945 insofar as it is interpreted as an automatic termination of employment.

Furthermore, the Petitioner argued that age-based limitation without objective evaluation of a professor’s capacity and contribution constitutes discrimination, contrary to Article 28I paragraph (2) of the UUD 1945. The Petitioner concluded that the provision is unconstitutional insofar as it is interpreted as an absolute age-based limitation.

In the petitum, the Petitioner requested the Court to declare the phrase “up to 70 (seventy) years” in Article 67 paragraph (5) of the Teachers and Lecturers Law contrary to the UUD 1945 and conditionally unconstitutional, insofar as it is not interpreted to mean that distinguished professors who have reached the age of 70 may have their service extended based on objective evaluation of performance in carrying out the Tridharma of Higher Education, physical and mental health, and institutional needs, with periodic evaluation.

News

Petition on Lecturer Service Age Limit Declared Inadmissible