The Petitioner in the judicial review of the Teachers and Lecturers Law, during an online hearing on Wednesday (April 8, 2026), confirmed the withdrawal of the petition before the Panel chaired by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra. Photo: MKRI/Ilham WM.

---

JAKARTA, MKRI — A professor at Putra Indonesia University (UPI) YPTK Padang, M. Havidz Aima, has withdrawn his petition for judicial review of Article 67 paragraph (5) of Law No. 14 of 2005 on Teachers and Lecturers (Teachers and Lecturers Law) against the 1945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 of the Republic of Indonesia. The withdrawal of Petition No. 105/PUU-XXIV/2026 was conveyed by M. Havidz Aima (the Petitioner) during an online hearing held at the Constitutional Court on Wednesday (April 8, 2026).

The hearing was presided over by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra. Initially, the hearing was scheduled to hear the principal revisions to the Petitioner’s application. However, the Petitioner informed the Court that he had decided to withdraw the petition after consulting and receiving advice from the constitutional justices during the previous panel hearing.

“I sincerely request permission to withdraw my petition. I would also like to express my gratitude to the Constitutional Court, as I have been treated exceptionally well not only by the justices but also by the administrative staff,” Havidz stated during the online hearing.

In response, Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra, along with Constitutional Justice Ridwan Mansyur and Constitutional Justice Adies Kadir, declared that following the Petitioner’s confirmation, the proceedings for Petition No. 105/PUU-XXIV/2026 were concluded and the hearing was adjourned.

Also read:

Retirement Age Provision for Professors Challenged

At the preliminary hearing held at the Court on Thursday (April 2, 2026), Havidz argued that interpreting 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.

He further 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 added 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.

Accordingly, the Petitioner requested the Court to declare that the phrase “a maximum of 70 (seventy) years” in Article 67 paragraph (5) of the Teachers and Lecturers Law 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 takes into account academic competence, physical and mental health, scientific productivity, and the needs of higher education institutions.

Author             : Sri Pujianti

Editor              : N. Rosi

Translator        : Nies Lindy

Explore Case No. 105/PUU-XXIV/2026 (in Indonesian)

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.

---