Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra delivering the Court’s legal opinion at the ruling hearing for the judicial review of Law No. 13 of 2023 on Manpower for case No. 65/PUU-XXIII/2025, Thursday (6/26/2025). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) declared the material judicial review petition of Law No. 13 of 2023 on Manpower inadmissible. The verdict was delivered through Decision No. 65/PUU-XXIII/2025 on Thursday, June 26, 2025.

The Petitioner, university student Syamsul Jahidin, 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.”

The Court found that, based on the entirety of the Petitioner’s arguments regarding his legal standing, although he confirmed his status as a student in the profile section of the petition, which he verbally confirmed at the preliminary hearing, it was neither elaborated upon nor substantiated in the section outlining legal standing.

“However, in the section on legal standing, the Petitioner did not provide any explanation or evidence of his status as a student or any specific connection to the enforcement of the law under review. Instead, he described himself only as an individual Indonesian citizen, linking his status to that of a taxpaying citizen,” said Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra while reading the Court’s legal reasoning.

Regarding the claimed constitutional loss, the Petitioner argued that the harm caused by the enforcement of Article 35 paragraph (1) of Law No. 13 of 2003 was actual or, at the very least, potential in nature. However, he failed to explain or demonstrate either actual or potential harm he had suffered as a student in relation to the provision.

Furthermore, the Petitioner did not provide any factual evidence that he had experienced a loss resulting from the enforcement of the contested provision. Given these facts, the Court concluded that the Petitioner was unable to establish a causal relationship between the enactment of the provision under review and the alleged constitutional harm.

Based on these considerations, the Court determined that the Petitioner had failed to sufficiently articulate and substantiate their legal standing as a student and the factual loss they allegedly suffered. Accordingly, the Court found no reason to declare that the Petitioner lacking legal standing to file the petition in question.

Also read:

Petitioner Questions Manpower Law for Potential Discrimination in Job Recruitment

Petitioner Revises Petition on Job Recruitment Process

The Petitioner argued that the provision had allowed employers excessive authority to set job requirements, which are often discriminatory, such as age limits. He argued that this had led to legal uncertainty, is against the principle of equality, and had 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 at the preliminary hearing on Friday, May 16.

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 was 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 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.

---