Petitioner’s’ legal counsel attending the Decision Pronouncement Hearing on the judicial review of the Job Creation Law on Thursday (16/7). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

Jakarta (MKRI) - The Constitutional Court (MK) rejected in its entirety a petition for judicial review of the Elucidation of Article 156 under the Elucidation of Article 81 point 47 of the Annex to Law No. 6 of 2023 on the Stipulation of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 2 of 2022 on Job Creation into Law (Job Creation Law). The ruling was issued in Decision No. 192/PUU-XXIV/2024 on a petition filed by Dianto Isnan Laksono Putra, a worker who had been laid off. The decision was delivered during a pronouncement hearing held on Thursday, July 16, 2026, in the Plenary Courtroom.

In its legal considerations, read out by Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh, the Court stated that Article 156 under the Elucidation of Article 81 point 47 of the Annex to the Job Creation Law was formulated to ensure that employers fulfill their obligations to provide workers with their lawful entitlements, while also reflecting the State’s role in providing legal protection for workers who have been dismissed.

With regard to the petitioner’s situation, in which severance compensation had not been paid despite a court judgment in his favor, the Court noted that the law expressly provides that, where a company has been declared bankrupt, unpaid wages and other outstanding workers’ entitlements constitute debts that must be accorded priority in payment.

“Therefore, the issue faced by the Petitioner essentially concerns the implementation or application of the norm and relates to the compliance of the employer, as well as other parties who are likewise required to comply,” Justice Daniel said while reading the Court’s legal considerations.

According to the Court, a declaration of bankruptcy does not extinguish an employer’s obligations toward its workers. Accordingly, the Court held that the petitioner’s failure to receive the compensation to which he was entitled did not, in itself, demonstrate that the challenged provision had created legal uncertainty.

Regarding the petitioner’s request that the Court order the establishment of an Employment Termination Compensation Guarantee Program under the Employment Social Security Administering Agency (BPJS Ketenagakerjaan) to assist in paying part of the wages and other entitlements of dismissed workers, the Court held that the request was unrelated to the word mandatory contained in the provision challenged by the petitioner.

The Court further held that establishing a new institution to administer an Employment Termination Compensation Guarantee Program under the Employment Social Security Administering Agency, as requested by the petitioner, would instead shift the responsibility that properly rests with employers to pay severance pay and/or long-service awards.

“Moreover, such an arrangement has the potential to impose responsibility on parties other than the employer for the payment of severance pay, long-service awards, and compensation for workers’ entitlements when a company becomes bankrupt. Therefore, if the State were positioned as a party bearing part of the employer’s obligations arising from dismissals due to bankruptcy, there would be a risk of shifting that responsibility,” Justice Daniel stated.

According to the Court, the petitioner’s proposal could instead create legal uncertainty, as employers might rely on bankruptcy or financial incapacity as grounds to avoid fulfilling their obligations to pay workers’ entitlements. On those grounds, the Court concluded that the petitioner’s arguments were legally unfounded.

Also read:

Not Receiving Severance Pay, Laid-Off Worker Challenges the Job Creation Law

Laid-Off Worker Challenging Job Creation Law Revises Petition

In a previous hearing, Dianto Isnan Laksono Putra, a laid-off worker, submitted a material review of the Elucidation of Article 156 on the Elucidation of Article 81 point 47 of the Annex to the Job Creation Law.  The Petitioner worked at PT Propernas Griya Utama from March 1, 2015, until being laid off on December 6, 2024, due to efficiency measures following the company's unhealthy financial conditions. As a worker who has been laid off, the Petitioner bases his constitutional rights on Article 28D paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution, which guarantees every person’s right to work and to receive fair and decent compensation and treatment in the workplace.

In the petition, the Petitioner argues that his constitutional right is violated by the enactment of the Elucidation of Article 56 in the Elucidation of Article 81 point 47 of the Annex of the Job Creation Law, which, according to the Petitioner, does not provide adequate regulations or protections regarding employers’ obligations to pay severance pay, service awards, and compensation for lost entitlements following layoffs, even though the Industrial Relations Court and the Supreme Court have ordered PT Propernas Griya Utama to pay the Petitioner’s entitlements.

Due to PT Propernas Griya Utama’s failure to pay the Petitioner’s entitlements, the Petitioner’s financial condition has continued to deteriorate since the end of 2024, and the Petitioner is now trapped in a never-ending cycle of online loans. The Petitioner believes that if the petition is granted, the constitutional harm resulting from the loss of the right to fair and just compensation in the employment relationship will no longer occur.

Case tracking: Petition No. 192/PUU-XXIV/2026 (in Indonesian)

Read in full: Decision No. 192/PUU-XXIV/2026 (in Indonesian)

Author: Ilham W.M.

Editor: Lulu Anjarsari P.

PR: Fauzan Febriyan

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.

---