Termination of Employment on Urgent Grounds Is Void by Operation of Law if Not Clearly and Explicitly Stipulated in Company Regulations or Collective Labor Agreements for Violating the Presumption of Innocence

Termination of employment (PHK) on the grounds of urgent violations raises legal issues when such grounds are not clearly formulated in company regulations or collective labor agreements, while the accusations against the employee are related to actions classified as criminal offenses. Article 52 paragraph (2) of Government Regulation Number 35 of 2021 opens the possibility of termination of employment due to urgent violations, but it has the potential to conflict with the presumption of innocence and the principle of equality before the law. This research aims to analyze the regulation of termination due to urgent reasons, examine its relationship with the presumption of innocence principle, and assess whether the ambiguity of the clause can render the termination null and void by law. This research uses a normative legal method with legislative, conceptual, and case approaches. The research results show that the ambiguity of the clause weakens the basis for using the special mechanism of Article 52 paragraph (2) and opens the risk of unilateral interpretation by employers, that criminal accusations should not be treated as facts until proven, and that the conclusion of nullity by law does not apply automatically, but rather depends on the basis of norms, proof of violations, and the fulfillment of procedures and workers' rights in concrete cases. Therefore, it is necessary to formulate clear, transparent, and measurable clauses, record company regulations or collective labor agreements with the Department of Manpower, calculate losses using legally recognized public instruments, and ensure fair judicial reasoning that upholds the presumption of innocence.