Muhamad Khaetami, petitioner for the judicial review of Law No. 2 of 2004 on Industrial Relations Dispute Settlement (PPHI Law), presenting the revised petition at a panel courtroom of the Constitutional Court, Monday (4/27/2026). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — Muhamad Khaetami (the Petitioner) outlined a number of revisions to Petition No. 125/PUU-XXIV/2026 concerning the judicial review of Article 15 in conjunction with Article 1 paragraph (12) of Law No. 2 of 2004 on Industrial Relations Dispute Settlement (PPHI Law). He presented these revisions at a hearing before the Constitutional Court on Monday, April 27, 2026.

Khaetami elaborated on his legal standing, arguing that, prior to mediation proceedings, mediators at regency/city manpower offices are required to examine the substance of the dispute or conduct clarifications, which may occur up to three times. He also described the losses he had suffered due to the disparity in sanctions imposed on mediators and conciliators.

He further explained that mediators are sanctioned for failing to complete mediation within 30 days, whereas conciliators are not sanctioned for failing to carry out conciliation, but rather for not issuing written recommendations. Another difference lies in the type of sanctions imposed: mediators are subject to disciplinary sanctions, while conciliators are only given written warnings.

Also read:
Petitioner Challenges Ambiguity in PPHI Law Mediation Provisions

Previously, at the preliminary hearing on Monday, April 14, 2026, Khaetami questioned the legal uncertainty regarding whether the 30-day time limit should be calculated from the date the dispute is reported or from the date it is delegated to the mediator. He also pointed out that the PPHI Law does not clearly define the term “working days,” thereby creating ambiguity in its implementation.

“The formulation of the a quo provision lacks legal certainty, is ambiguous, and inefficient. Its implementation leads to legal uncertainty and ineffectiveness,” he stated during the hearing.

The Petitioner also shared his firsthand experience in resolving the dispute. He filed the report on April 24, 2025, but did not receive the first clarification summons until May 14, 2025. After several rounds of clarification, mediation was held on June 24, 2025, approximately 2 months after the report was filed. He further noted that the mediator's written recommendation was received only about 60 days after the mediation. According to him, such delays are inconsistent with the provisions of the PPHI Law and may be detrimental to workers.

In his petitum, the Petitioner requests the Court to declare Article 15 of the PPHI Law conditionally constitutional, provided that the 30-working-day time limit is interpreted as commencing from the date the dispute report is received by the relevant institution. He also requests that the phrase concerning the obligation to issue written recommendations in Article 1 paragraph (12) be declared conditionally unconstitutional, unless interpreted in accordance with his petition.

Author: Ilham Wiryadi Muhammad
Editor: N. Rosi
Translator: Yuanna Sisilia

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.

Explore the Case: Case No. 125/PUU-XXIV/2026

 

---