DPR's Baleg Debates Minimum Age Limit of 18 for Domestic Workers in PPRT Bill DIM

Indonesia’s House of Representatives Legislation Body (Baleg DPR RI) continued its working meeting with the government to discuss the List of Problem Inventory (DIM) for the Domestic Workers Protection Bill (RUU PPRT). During the meeting, Baleg DPR members debated the minimum age limit for domestic workers (PRT) in one of the DIMs.

Initially, Secretary General of the Ministry of Manpower Cris Kuntadi read out the DIMs one by one for discussion by Baleg DPR RI, during the meeting at Baleg DPR, Senayan, Jakarta, on Monday (20/4/2026). One of the DIMs discussed was the minimum age for someone to work as a PRT.

“DIM no 53, letter a. aged at least 18 years or already married, the government’s response to the substantive change in letter a. reads aged at least 18 years, notes in accordance with statutory provisions, 1. Law No. 20 of 2002 on Child Protection as amended by Law No. 35 of 2014. 2. Law No. 13 of 2003 on Manpower,” said Cris while presenting DIM number 53.

Baleg DPR RI Chairman Bob Hasan then sought agreement on the substantive change in that DIM. The meeting forum approved it.

“How about it, ladies and gentlemen, do we agree that we write or already married, it is feared that there are those aged 16 years, there are those aged 15 years, so from today after this Law is enacted, it is binding, must be 18 years old. Agreed?

“Agreed,” replied the meeting forum.

However, before it was finalised, one Baleg DPR member requested that the point in that DIM be discussed again. According to him, there are underage children under 18 years old working as PRT, whether already married or not.

“The point is we agree, but this is our idealisation, the field facts are the reality, there are indeed children under 18, who have passed, it must be regulated,” said one Baleg DPR member.

“Yes, later we will make it in the transitional provisions,” replied Bob.

“Meaning there is an explanation, right?” asked that Baleg DPR member again.

“Transitional provisions are also possible, in the Government Regulation it can also, yes, right, implementing 18 years means what about those who have been ongoing before, it is certainly those before cannot be included in this 18 years part, because it only applies now,” stated Bob.

Bob then requested that Baleg DPR’s proposal regarding the exception for ‘those already married’ be included in the transitional clause. He asked the government to prepare a special transitional clause for the exception of ‘those already married’.

“We have agreed on this, right, directly transitional provisions,” said Bob.

“Regarding transitional provisions, when this Law begins to apply to PRT who are already married but under 18 years old before this Law applies, they remain as PRT. Proposed,” said Cris.

Baleg DPR RI member from the PDIP Faction I Nyoman Parta then emphasised again that there are many children under 18 years old who are not yet married working as PRT. He then questioned their fate.

“The reality, ladies and gentlemen, the reality is not only for those who are married, the field reality is many who are not married but already working under 18 years old,” asked Nyoman.

In response, Bob emphasised the exception only for PRT under 18 years old who are already married. He said this is closely related to the Child Protection Law and the Manpower Law.

“Yes, for the future, in my opinion, to safeguard, because this is related to child protection and labour. That’s why this is permissive language, meaning it applies retroactively like this, if under 18 years old, automatically they must follow this rule, except those who are already married,” he explained.

“Under 18 years old tomorrow must leave first, because this applies. Those not subject to the age limit are only those already married, those not married must leave first, Mr Nyoman. That’s the offer 2. Yes, those not yet 18 years old are nullified, they must follow this rule. They cannot work anymore. This transitional provision is made only for those married, because this is related to child protection and manpower,” he continued.

“According to criminal law, under 18 years old is still considered a child, cannot be treated a, b, c, d, that in the Manpower Law, the workplace must accept labour at least 18 years old. Meaning the state has no obligation to those under 18 years old,” he stressed again.

The government agreed with Bob. Cris affirmed that the government will regulate children under age employed as PRT.

“What the leadership said yes, same as the government’s opinion, even if not regulated in this Law, but already regulated in Law No. 13 of 2003, so those who can work are 18 years and above, below that enter the child labour category, if we find child labour in the workplace, then the manpower supervisor will pull them from the workplace, because it is not allowed by regulation, therefore in this proposal we also limit to 18 years except for those already married there is regulation in the transition,” said Cris.

Nyoman then countered again with the field fact that there are many children under 18 years old already working as PRT. He questioned why the Ministry of Manpower did not regulate it before discussing the RUU PPRT.

“I understand and agree with what becomes our idealisation, our children minimum 18 years old before entering the workforce, next those already married but not yet 18 years old, but the field today we cannot close our eyes, Mr Minister also don’t boast I will remove them, why didn’t you remove them from today from before? There are thousands of underage children working like that, you didn’t remove them, the fact now there are,” he stressed.

“Will with us hammering it tomorrow the children will leave next? What is the sanction? Then when they are not working, where is the state? It must be clear first, we can’t just here clash with reality that we may not be able to solve yet,” he added.

Bob then responded to Nyoman. He assured that the government has no personal intentions regarding the substantive change in that DIM. He also reminded that employing children under age is wrong.

“We seek a solution, yes sir, I believe the government also has no personal intentions, the esteemed ones see