The Petitioner at the preliminary hearing for the material judicial review of Law No. 13 of 2023 on Manpower for case No. 65/PUU-XXIII/2025, Monday (6/2/2025). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held the second hearing for the material judicial review of Law No. 13 of 2023 on Manpower on Monday, June 2, 2025 to examine revisions to the petition. The petition for case No. 65/PUU-XXIII/2025 was filed by Syamsul Jahidin, a university student.

The Petitioner challenges Article 35 paragraph (1) of the Manpower Law, which reads, “Employers who need workforce may recruit by themselves the workforce they need or have them recruited through job placement agencies.”

He appeared before the Court without any legal counsel. “[I] added point f on age limits following Article 35 paragraph (1) of Law No. 13 of 2023 on Manpower, which became an issue until the issuance of a circular letter prohibiting discrimination in the recruitment process. The article is the basis for the freedom to obtain work due to the enforcement of the a quo article,” he said.

In the petitums, he only added a request to the Court to order the inclusion of the decision into the state gazette as it should. He also added the request for the justices to give a just decision if they are of another opinion.

Also read: Petitioner Questions Manpower Law for Potential Discrimination in Job Recruitment

The Petitioner believes that the provision has allowed employers excessive authority to set job requirements, which are often discriminatory, such as age limits. He argued that this has led to legal uncertainty, is against the principle of equality, and restricted access to fair jobs.

“The phrase ‘may recruit by themselves the workforce they need’ in Article 35 paragraph (1) has led to increasing social impacts. Many job requirements are illogical, thus restricting job seekers from finding work,” he said before the constitutional justices.

He referred to the Constitutional Court Decision No. 124/PUU-XXII/2024, in which the Court ruled that a similar phrase had allowed for discrimination. He stressed that this is against the ILO Convention No. 111 on Discrimination in the Workplace, which has been ratified through Law No. 21 of 1999. Therefore, the state must provide legal protection and revise norms that potentially take away citizens’ rights to decent work.

In the petitums, Syamsul asked the Court to declare Article 35 paragraph (1) of the Manpower Law conditionally unconstitutional and that it must be interpreted that employers must not commit discrimination in any form, including on the basis of age, religion, ethnicity, race, sex, education, nor must they disparage any job seekers, except on legitimate grounds.

Author         : Utami Argawati
Editor          : N. Rosi
PR               : Andini S.F.
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.

---