ANALISIS YURIDIS PERTIMBANGAN HAKIM
TERHADAP DISKRIMINASI SYARAT USIA KERJA
BERDASARKAN UNDANG UNDANG DASAR 1945 DAN
PERATURAN PERUNDANG UNDANGAN (STUDI
PUTUSAN MK NOMOR 35/PUU-XXII/2024)
Juridicial Analysis Of Judges' Consideration Of Discrimination In Working Age
Requirements Based On The 1945 Constitution And Laws And Regulations (Study Of
Decision MK Number 35/PUU-XXII/2024)
Munculnya Putusan MK Nomor 35/PUU-XXII/2024 adalah respons adanya
konflik yakni terkait diskriminasi syarat usia kerja di Indonesia. Konflik ini
bermula dari adanya pertentangan antara kebebasan perusahaan dalam
menentukan syarat perekrutan tenaga kerja yang mana diatur dalam Pasal 35 Ayat
(1) Undang Undang Ketenagakerjaan dengan hak pekerja yang diatur dalam Pasal
28D Ayat (2) Undang Undang Dasar 1945. Persoalan ini diangkat karena adanya
batasan usia yang diterapkan oleh perusahaan tidak hanya membatasi mengenai
akses terhadap pekerjaan, namun juga melanggar prinsip non diskriminasi dan
keadilan sosial yang telah diatur oleh Pancasila dan UUD 1945. Jenis penelitian
yang dipilih dalam penelitian ini adalah penelitian hukum normatif. Jenis
penelitian hukum normatif dipilih untuk penelitian ini karena terdapat kekaburan
norma dalam pertimbangan hakim dan amar putusan hakim pada Putusan MK
Nomor 35/PUU-XXII/2024 yakni adanya bertentangan dengan Pasal 28D Ayat 2
Undang Undang Dasar 1945. Namun, sayangnya amar putusan menyatakan
bahwa Hakim menolak permohonan pemohon untuk seluruhnya. Tetapi terdapat
pula dissenting opinion (perbedaan pendapat) oleh salah satu hakim yang mana
iiiii
dapat menjadi bahan yang mendukung. Oleh sebab itu penelitian ini diharapkan
dapat memberikan rekomendasi terhadap kemungkinan upaya hukum lebih
lanjut, seperti peninjauan ulang terhadap Pasal 35 Ayat 1 UU Ketenagakerjaan,
guna memastikan bahwa aturan ketenagakerjaan di Indonesia tidak bertentangan
dengan hak-hak konstitusional warga negara
Kata kunci: Pertimbangan Hakim, Diskriminasi, Syarat Usia Kerja, Dissenting
Opinion
The emergence of Decision MK Number 35/PUU-XXII/2024 is a response to a conflict
related to discrimination in working age requirements in Indonesia. This conflict stems
from the conflict between the company's freedom to determine the conditions for recruiting
workers, which is regulated in Article 35 Paragraph (1) of the Manpower Law, and
workers' rights, which are regulated in Article 28D Paragraph (2) of the 1945
Constitution. This issue is raised because the age limit applied by companies not only limits
access to employment, but also violates the principles of non-discrimination and social
justice which have been regulated by Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution. The type of
research chosen in this research is normative legal research. This type of normative legal
research was chosen for this research because there is a blurring of norms in the judge's
consideration and the judge's verdict in Decision MK Number 35/PUU-XXII/2024,
namely that there is a conflict with Article 28D Paragraph 2 of the 1945 Constitution.
However, unfortunately the verdict stated that the judge rejected the applicant's petition
in its entirety. But there is also a dissenting opinion by one of the judges which can be a
supporting material. Therefore, this research is expected to provide recommendations on
the possibility of further legal remedies, such as a review of Article 35 Paragraph 1 of the
ivLabor Law, to ensure that labor regulations in Indonesia do not conflict with the
constitutional rights of citizens.
Keywords: Judges Consideration, Discrimination, Working Age Requirement, Dissenting