Havidz Aima, the petitioner in the judicial review of Law No. 14 of 2005 on Teachers and Lecturers (Teachers and Lecturers Law), presented the principal arguments of the petition at a preliminary hearing before the Panel on Thursday (April 2, 2026). Photo: MKRI/Panji.

---

JAKARTA, MKRI – A professor at Putra Indonesia University (UPI) YPTK Padang, M. Havidz Aima, has filed a petition for judicial review of Article 67 paragraph (5) of Law No. 14 of 2005 on Teachers and Lecturers (Teachers and Lecturers Law) against the 1945 Constitution with the Constitutional Court. The Preliminary Hearing for Case No. 105/PUU-XXIV/2026 was presided over by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra in the Panel Courtroom on Thursday (April 2, 2026).

In his petition, Havidz Aima argued that interpreting the provision under Article 67 paragraph (5) of the Teachers and Lecturers Law as an absolute age limit that automatically terminates a professor’s service is inconsistent with constitutional principles guaranteeing the right to work, fair legal certainty, protection from discrimination, and the State’s obligation to advance science and technology.

Furthermore, the Petitioner contended that the phrase “a maximum of 70 (seventy) years” in Article 67 paragraph (5) fails to take into account objective individual conditions, such as health, intellectual capacity, scientific productivity, and the needs of higher education institutions, thereby potentially resulting in equal treatment of unequal circumstances. In the academic profession, scientific competence, academic contributions, and research productivity are the primary indicators of a professor’s continued service, rather than merely chronological age.

Havidz further stated that insofar as the phrase “a maximum of 70 (seventy) years” is construed as an absolute age limit resulting in the automatic termination of a professor’s service without objective evaluation, it is potentially inconsistent with the principle of fair legal certainty as guaranteed under Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

“Declare that the phrase ‘a maximum of 70 (seventy) years’ in Article 67 paragraph (5) of Law No. 14 of 2005 on Teachers and Lecturers is contrary to the 1945 Constitution insofar as it is interpreted as an absolute age limit that results in the automatic termination of a professor’s academic authority without an objective evaluation mechanism that considers academic competence, physical and mental health, scientific productivity, and the needs of higher education institutions,” Havidz stated while reading the petitum of his petition.

Petition Structure

During the panel hearing, Constitutional Justice Ridwan Mansyur advised the Petitioner to revise the structure of the petition, which currently spans more than 70 pages. “It needs to be simplified and aligned with the standard format as stipulated in Constitutional Court Regulation Number 7 of 2025. Accordingly, elements such as the table of contents and introduction are unnecessary and may be incorporated into the section on the reasons for the petition, in accordance with the Court’s provisions,” Justice Ridwan explained.

Constitutional Justice Adies Kadir further noted that the substance of the petition, particularly in the section on legal standing, should be elaborated more clearly. “The posita section is highly unusual. This is not common practice and needs to be corrected, as it should only contain constitutional arguments regarding the inconsistency between the challenged norm and the Constitution. Therefore, the posita must be structured concisely, systematically, and in a clear and comprehensible manner,” Adies stated.

At the conclusion of the hearing, Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra stated that the Petitioner was granted 14 days to revise the petition. The revised submission must be filed no later than Wednesday, April 15, 2026, at 12:00 WIB. The Court will subsequently schedule the second hearing with the agenda of hearing the principal revisions to the Petitioner’s application.

Author             : Sri Pujianti

Editor              : N. Rosi

Translator        : Nies Lindy

Explore Case No. 105/PUU-XXIV/2026

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.

---