Leonardo Olefins Hamonangan presenting the petition revisions at a judicial review hearing of the Manpower Law and the Human Rights Law, Tuesday (10/8/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — Leonardo Olefins Hamonangan, Max Andrew Ohandi, and Martin Maurer have revised the petition No. 124/PUU-XXII/2024 on judicial review of Law No. 13 of 2003 on Manpower and Law No. 39 of 1999 on Human Rights. They believe that age restriction in job requirements is one of the cases of high unemployment in Indonesia.

“This is proven by the high number of public complaints and expectations of the people of the Republic of Indonesia,” Hamonangan said at the petition revision hearing on Tuesday, October 8, 2024.

The Petitioners presented the Central Statistics Agency’s (BPS) national labor force survey, which shows that the number of unemployment in Indonesia in August 2023 reached 7.86 million with a total labor force of 147.71 million. The Petitioners argued that Article 1 point 3 of the Human Rights Law has perpetuated age discrimination in job vacancies and has harmed the constitutional rights of every citizen.

“The absence of the [word] ‘age’ in the discrimination under Article 1 point 3 of Law No. 39 of 1999 on Human Rights creates a loophole for the practice of ageism, which until now is commonplace in job vacancies,” Hamonangan said.

He argued that including the word “age” in the definition of discrimination in Article 1 point 3 of the Human Rights Law would not weaken protection from discriminatory practices, but instead strengthen the protection of Indonesian citizens from all forms of ageism. Age restrictions in job vacancies are often based on negative stereotypes of the abilities of older individuals.

In fact, the Petitioners argued, research shows older individuals remain capable of learning new things and adapting to technology, especially if they are given adequate training and support. Meanwhile, there are also many examples of younger workers who may not have the maturity or experience required for certain positions. 

Also read: Discrimination in Recruitment Questioned

The three Petitioners question the phrase “may recruit by themselves the workforce they need” in Article 35 paragraph (1) of the Manpower Law. They also challenge Article 1 point 3 of the Human Rights Law.

They believe the provision may lead to abuse of authority or recruitment that do not meet standards. In some cases, it may even lead to violations of workers’ rights or disharmony in work relations. It may also lead to discrimination in the recruitment process.

There is no guarantee that the recruited workforce will be selected based on qualifications or merit. It could lead to widespread social impacts because there are often unreasonable requirements that result in many job seekers having difficulty getting a job.

The Petitioners argue that the Manpower Law does not regulate equality in the recruitment process, which can lead to discrimination against certain groups based on factors such as age, gender, or regional origin. Injustice in the recruitment process can undermine public confidence in the company and contradict the principle of non-discrimination, which is widely recognized in Manpower Law.

Meanwhile, Article 5 of the Manpower Law states that every worker has the same opportunity to obtain employment without discrimination. However, it does not concretely protect job seekers against discrimination in vacancies because it only contains an appeal but no strict affirmation of the prohibition against discrimination.

In addition, the Petitioners argue that Article 1 point 3 of the Human Rights Law does not state that age restriction is a form of discrimination, whereas several countries have included ageism as a form of discrimination that is prohibited. Moreover, the article does not view job vacancy requirements such as good looks as a form of discrimination. The Petitioners assert that according to the Indonesian Language Dictionary (KBBI), discriminatory means to treat things differently. 

In one of the petitums, the Petitioners request that the Court declare Article 35 paragraph (1) of the Manpower Law unconstitutional and not legally binding if not interpreted as, “Employers who need workforce may recruit by themselves the workforce they need or have them recruited through job placement agencies. They shall be prohibited from posting job vacancies that requires certain age, good looks, race, skin color, sex, religion, political views, nationality or origin of ancestry, unless otherwise provided by laws and regulations.”

They also request that the Court declare Article 1 point 3 of the Human Rights Law unconstitutional and not legally binding if not interpreted as, “Discrimination  means  all  limitations,  affronts,  or  ostracism,  both  direct  and indirect, on grounds of differences in age, religion, ethnicity, race, group, faction, social status,  economic  status,  sex,  language,  or  political  belief,  that  results  in  the degradation, aberration, or eradication of recognition, execution, or application of human rights and basic freedoms, of both individuals and collective, in political, economic, legal, social, cultural, or any other aspects of life.” 

Author            : Mimi Kartika
Editor             : N. Rosi
PR                 : Raisa Ayuditha Marsaulina
Translator       : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

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.

---