Legal counsel Grace Bintang Hidayanti Sihotang attending the preliminary hearing on the judicial review of Law No. 6 of 2023 on Job Creation on Wednesday (11/03). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

Jakarta (MKRI) - Linawati Logito, director of PT Tiga Cipta Pariwara, has filed a petition for judicial review of Article 157A paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of Law No. 6 of 2023 on the Stipulation of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 2 of 2022 on Job Creation, with the Constitutional Court (MK). She argues that the obligation to pay wages throughout the process of resolving termination-of-employment (PHK) disputes until a final and binding judgment, as set out in the contested provisions, is difficult to bear in her company’s situation.

“It would be unfair if the duration and amount of wages during proceedings were standardized across all companies, including those carrying out layoffs due to losses, PKPU (suspension of debt payment obligations), and other causes that significantly reduce their ability to pay,” said Grace Bintang Hidayanti Sihotang, the Petitioner’s legal counsel, at the preliminary hearing of Petition No. 90/PUU-XXIV/2026 on Wednesday, March 11, 2026, in the Constitutional Court.

Article 157A provides: “(1) During the settlement of an industrial relations dispute, employers and workers/laborers must continue to perform their obligations. (2) Employers may suspend workers/laborers who are in the process of termination of employment while continuing to pay their wages and other entitlements they normally receive. (3) The obligations referred to in paragraph (1) shall continue until the completion of the settlement process of the industrial relations dispute at all levels.”

The Petitioner argues that the amount of wages payable during the settlement of industrial relations disputes should not be applied uniformly to all companies, whether they are making layoffs due to losses, liquidation, or other reasons. She says her company was forced to lay off employees because its finances had been in persistent deficit, leaving it unable to pay employees’ wages.

Losses from 2023 to 2025 were caused by a decline in advertising tenders, as audiences shifted rapidly from television to digital and online media, leading to a steep drop in television advertising projects and audited financial losses, both internally and externally, by public accounting firm Kanel and Partners.

In the case at hand, the Petitioner highlighted the risk posed when a highly paid employee files a termination dispute. If the case proceeds through multiple appeals up to cassation over several years, the obligation to pay wages during proceedings can impose a significant burden on a loss‑making company, a situation she likened to “rub salt into the wound.”

The Petitioner maintains that Article 157A paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) in conjunction with Constitutional Court Decision No. 168/PUU-XXI/2023 conflict with Article 27 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution because they tilt too strongly in favour of workers and may invite abuse by bad‑faith parties.

In its petitum, the Petitioner asks the Court to declare unconstitutional and without binding legal force Article 157A, paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), of Law No. 6 of 2023 on Job Creation. She requests that the Court reconsider and avoid standardizing the amount and duration of wages during proceedings for all companies, particularly those implementing layoffs due to financial losses, and that, where termination provisions are regulated in an employment contract, workers must agree to those terms.

The case was heard by a Panel of Justices chaired by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra, sitting with Justices Ridwan Mansyur and Adies Kadir. In the advisory session, Justice Ridwan noted that the Petitioner had not yet set out the grounds of the petition as required by Constitutional Court Regulation No. 7 of 2025 on Procedures in Constitutional Review of Laws (PMK 7/2025), which stipulates that a petition must at minimum state the Petitioner’s name and address and elaborate the Court’s jurisdiction, the Petitioner’s legal standing, the grounds of the petition (posita), and the relief sought (petitum).

“These reasons for the petition are not set out here,” Justice Ridwan said.

Before adjourning, Deputy Chief Justice Saldi informed the Petitioner that she had only one opportunity to revise the petition and that both soft copy and hard copy of the amended petition must reach the Court no later than Wednesday, March 25, 2026, at 12.00 Western Indonesian Time.

Case tracking: Petition No. 90/PUU-XXIV/2026

Author: Mimi Kartika.

Editor: N. Rosi.

PR: Andhini SF.

Translator: Rizky Kurnia Chaesario

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.

 

---