The Constitutional Court Rejects Lawsuit On Applicants' Age Limits In Job Vacancies

MK/DOK PHOTO Building: Diah Ayu-VOI

JAKARTA - The Constitutional Court (MK) has decided to reject the application for judicial review of Article 35 paragraph (1) of Law Number 13 of 2003 concerning Manpower which questions the age limit for applicants in job vacancies.

"The verdict, trial, reject the applicant's petition in its entirety," said Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Suhartoyo reading the Decision Number 35/PUU-XXII/2024 reported by ANTARA, Tuesday, July 30

The application was submitted by a private employee Leonardo Olefinds Hamonangan.

He tested the constitutionality of Article 35 paragraph (1) of the Employment Law which reads: Workers who need a workforce can recruit their own required workforce or through the implementation of the placement of the workforce.

According to the petitioner, Article 35 paragraph (1) of the Manpower Law gives power to companies to determine for themselves the requirements for job vacancies.

Applicants argued that the article being tested has the potential to normalize the company to determine the requirements for discriminatory job vacancies, such as including maximum age limits, work experience, and educational backgrounds.

The petitioner assessed that the requirement for job vacancies made him or other prospective workers hampered or did not meet the initial qualifications, thus discriminating human rights and increasing the unemployment rate in Indonesia.

Meanwhile, in its legal considerations, the Constitutional Court explained that the definition of discrimination against human rights has been regulated in Article 1 point 3 of Law Number 39 of 1999 concerning Human Rights.

Based on this article, discrimination occurs when there are restrictions, harassment, or exclusion based on human distinction on the basis of religion, ethnicity, race, ethnicity, groups, groups, social status, economic status, gender, language, and political beliefs.

In other words, according to the Constitutional Court, the limitation of discrimination is not related to age limit, work experience, and educational background.

In addition, the Constitutional Court also emphasized that Article 32 paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Manpower Law have regulated the placement of labor must be regulated in such a way, so as to protect the rights and basic protections of the workforce.

Moreover, he said, Article 5 of the Manpower Law has also regulated the prohibition of discrimination for workers.

"Thus, the petitioner's petition is unwarranted according to the law," said Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat reading out the court's legal considerations.

Regarding this decision, Constitutional Justice M. Guntur Hamzah expressed a different opinion (dissentingopinion). According to Guntur, the Constitutional Court should be able to partially grant the petitioner's petition because the article being tested does have constitutional problems.

Guntur explained that the norm of the article being tested creates legal uncertainty for job seekers, especially in the phrase'recruiting the workforce it needs'.

The phrase, he said, could make employers consider subjective matters, such as requiring prospective workers to look attractive, age requirements, and other physical requirements.