The ruling hearing for case No. 70/PUU-XXIII/2025 on the judicial review of the Manpower Law, Thursday (6/26/2025). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) has decided to reject the entirety of the judicial review petition of Law No. 13 of 2003 on Manpower through Decision No. 70/PUU-XXIII/2025, delivered on Thursday, June 26, 2025 in the plenary courtroom.

Leonardo Olefins Hamonangan challenged 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.”

In its legal considerations, delivered by Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat, the Court emphasized that the Petitioner’s petitums—for the Court to interpret Article 35 paragraph (1) of the Manpower Law to mean that an employer who requires workers may either recruit such workers directly or through a job placement agency, and must not set requirements prioritizing factors such as age, sex, race, ethnicity, religion, specific educational background, alma mater, or other personal conditions unrelated directly to objective competencies, qualifications, and job requirements—is essentially identical to the petitums previously submitted by the same petitioner in cases No. 35/PUU-XXII/2024, No. 124/PUU-XXII/2024, and No. 159/PUU-XXII/2024.

The Court observed that, although the Petitioner presented a different constitutional basis for review compared to the prior petitions already adjudicated, in substance, the present petition was essentially the same as those in cases No. 35/PUU-XXII/2024, No. 124/PUU-XXII/2024, and No. 159/PUU-XXII/2024 Consequently, the Court’s legal considerations for those three cases shall apply mutatis mutandis in assessing the arguments raised by the Petitioner in this case. As the Court currently saw no compelling reason to depart from the reasoning established in those previous decisions, the Petitioner’s arguments must therefore be declared legally unfounded.

Also read:

Petitioner Believes Job Recruitment Discriminatory

Petition Revision Hearing on Manpower Law Held Without Petitioner

At the preliminary hearing on Wednesday, May 21, 2025, Leonardo Olefins Hamonangan questioned the constitutionality of Article 35 paragraph (1) of the Manpower Law, which reads, “An employer requiring workers may recruit the necessary workers directly or through a manpower placement provider.”

He asserted that the provision opens the door to discriminatory practices in the recruitment process. He shared his experience as an active job seeker using various online platforms and discovering that many job vacancies set discriminatory requirements, such as age limits, university origin, and physical appearance. 

“Article 35 paragraph (1) of the Manpower Law presents issues related to the sense of justice,” he stated before the constitutional justices.

He argued that such practices run counter to the principles of social justice and non-discrimination mandated by the 1945 Constitution. In his petitums, he asked the Court to declare the article conditionally unconstitutional and to interpret it as prohibiting employers from setting job requirements that discriminate based on age, gender, race, religion, educational background, university origin, or other irrelevant personal traits.

Through his petition, Hamonangan asked the Court to declare Article 35 paragraph (1) of the Manpower Law conditionally unconstitutional. He proposed that it be interpreted to mean that employers may not set employment requirements that are discriminatory against age, gender, race, religion, educational background, alma mater, or other personal conditions that are not relevant to the competence and objective of the position.

Also read: Decision No. 70/PUU-XXIII/2025.

Author         : Utami Argawati
Editor          : N. Rosi
PR               : Raisa Ayuditha Marsaulina
Translator     : Yuniar Widiastuti, Yuanna Sisilia (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.

---