Constitutional Court Decision 192/PUU-XXIV/2026 is a 2026 ruling of the Constitutional Court of Indonesia on a petition for material review of the word wajib ("obliged") in Pasal 156(1) of the Manpower Law as amended by Undang-Undang 6/2023, the Job Creation Law, the provision obliging an employer to pay severance, a service award and compensation for entitlements when employment is terminated.^[1][2] The petition was brought by a former employee whose employment had been terminated in December 2024 and who had not received termination compensation.^[2:1] It is one of the constitutional review cases pronounced by the Court on 16 July 2026.^[3]

The Court held that the petitioner had standing and that the provision could be reviewed again, because the petition rested on grounds different from those of an earlier review of the same article.^[4] On the merits it held that the obligation, backed by criminal sanctions and by the priority of workers' claims in bankruptcy, did not create legal uncertainty, that the non-payment complained of was a problem of compliance and enforcement, and that it could not read into the provision a new compensation programme.^[5][6] It rejected the petition in its entirety.^[3:1]

¶ Provision under review

Pasal 81 angka 47 of the Annex to Undang-Undang 6/2023 restates Pasal 156 of Undang-Undang 13/2003 on manpower. Its ayat (1) provides that, where employment is terminated, the employer is obliged (wajib) to pay severance (uang pesangon) and/or a service award (uang penghargaan masa kerja) and compensation for entitlements (uang penggantian hak) that should be received; the amounts are set by ayat (2) to (4) and by government regulation.^[2:2][5:1]

¶ Petition

The petition, dated 26 May 2026, was received and registered on the same day, and a revised petition was received on 24 June 2026.^[7] The petitioner stated that the former employer had terminated the employment on grounds of efficiency and had also fallen into arrears on social security contributions, so that he could claim neither termination compensation nor the cash benefit of the job-loss insurance programme.^[2:3] The petition argued that the obligation in Pasal 156(1) gave inadequate protection (constitutional inadequacy), because payment depended on the employer's finances, and pointed to worker-protection schemes in Japan and South Korea for insolvent employers.^[8] It asked the Court to hold the word wajib conditionally unconstitutional unless read to establish a Termination Compensation Guarantee Programme within the social security agency for employment, BPJS Ketenagakerjaan, to secure payment of the three entitlements.^[9]

¶ Ruling

The Court first considered whether the provision could be reviewed again under Pasal 60 of the Constitutional Court Law and Pasal 72 of Peraturan Mahkamah Konstitusi 7/2025. It had rejected a challenge to Pasal 156(1) in decision 40/PUU-XXI/2023, pronounced on 31 October 2024, but that petition had argued that the Job Creation Law lowered the compensation formerly set by Undang-Undang 13/2003; the present petition rested on a different ground and sought different relief, and so was not barred.^[4:1] The Court heard no testimony from the legislature or the government, finding the petition clear enough to decide without it.^[10]

On the merits the Court read Pasal 156(1) as a worker-protection rule. It noted that Pasal 185, as set out in Pasal 81 angka 66 of the Annex, makes a breach of Pasal 156(1) a criminal offence punishable by one to four years' imprisonment and/or a fine of Rp100 million to Rp400 million, and that Pasal 95, as set out in Pasal 81 angka 36, makes unpaid wages and other entitlements a preferred debt when an employer is declared bankrupt or liquidated. It concluded that the non-payment the petitioner faced concerned employer compliance, execution and labour-law enforcement rather than the constitutionality of the word wajib, since bankruptcy does not extinguish the obligation.^[5:2]

The Court held that the programme sought could not be granted: it did not concern the constitutionality of the word, it would shift the provision's addressee away from the employer, and placing the state alongside employers as a payer risked giving employers a pretext to avoid their obligation. The word wajib was to remain a binding, mandatory obligation of the employer, and the claim under Pasal 28D(2) of the 1945 Constitution failed.^[6:1][11] The Court also reminded the legislature that, under decision 168/PUU-XXI/2023 as restated in decision 167/PUU-XXIV/2026, the manpower cluster of the Job Creation Law must be separated into a new manpower law by 31 October 2026, failing which Undang-Undang 13/2003 and the Court's manpower decisions would apply.^[12] The decision was reached in deliberation on 24 June 2026 and pronounced on 16 July 2026, with Suhartoyo presiding.^[3:2]

CRPG's regulatory tracker published an account of the decision on 18 August 2026.^[13] That account attributed to the Court reasoning on the pending manpower bill and on earlier decisions that the decision text sets out as part of the petition, not of the Court's own consideration.^[14][13:1] On the same day the Court also decided challenges to the mining statute in decision 160/PUU-XXIII/2025 and decision 184/PUU-XXIII/2025.^[15][16]

¶ External links

• Decision (Mahkamah Konstitusi)
• Case record (Mahkamah Konstitusi)
• CRPG: Constitutional Review of Mandatory Termination Compensation: MK 192/PUU-XXIV/2026 (crpg.id, 18 August 2026)

¶ References