Public holiday and religious freedom system in Indonesia: equality or equity? Open Access

In diverse societies, the design of public holidays can reveal much about how states translate universal human rights principles into everyday life. In Indonesia, where constitutional guarantees of religious freedom coexist with a rich mosaic of faiths, the calendaring of religious observances embodies both symbolic recognition and practical policymaking. Against this backdrop, the relationship between public holidays and religious freedom in Indonesia is far more than a procedural enumeration of dates; it is an arena where fundamental human rights, state obligations, and social equity converge (Hollenbach, 2022; Kusmaryanto, 2021).

The freedom of religion, enshrined in international instruments, extends beyond private belief to encompass communal worship, ritual observance, and the right to change one's faith (Gunner, 2023). When public holidays are framed as an extension of Article 18(1) of the ICCPR, the expectation arises that states should not merely avoid interference but also actively facilitate the expression and practice of religious identity (Reza, 2022; Taylor, 2005). However, the designation of holidays alone may not fully address the diverse needs of religious communities, especially when practical access and societal recognition vary across groups.

Three interrelated dimensions of religious freedom—autonomy in belief, protection of religious identity, and the collective right to public ritual—each imply specific state responsibilities (Reza, 2022; Taylor, 2005). These responsibilities range from shielding converts from coercion to ensuring that minority rites are logistically supported and culturally respected. Indonesia's holiday system, therefore, must be examined in terms of how it aligns with and fulfils these obligations, particularly in the context of a multireligious society.

Public holidays serve as a concrete mechanism through which states can express respect for religious diversity (Brookman, 1998; Radics & Sinha, 2018). By officially recognising religious celebrations such as Eid, Christmas, and Nyepi, the Indonesian government provides formal acknowledgement of multiple faith traditions. Nonetheless, formal recognition may not always translate into substantive equality if broader social structures continue to privilege majority practices over minority ones (Ishak & Ramalina Ranaivo, 2022).

International law, particularly Article 18 and Article 27 of the ICCPR, reinforces the dual obligation of states to abstain from discriminatory practices while also taking proactive steps to support minority cultures (Dickson, 1995; Vitkauskaitė-Meurice, 2011). Recognising religions legally is a necessary first step, but ensuring equitable enjoyment of public holidays involves more nuanced efforts that reflect the lived experiences of different religious communities.

In Indonesia, the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom (Aditya & Al-Fatih, 2017; Arifin, 2018) and the formal recognition of six religions have created a complex but instructive landscape. The inclusion of holidays from these religions in the national calendar suggests an intention to support pluralism (See Figure 1). Yet, the extent to which this inclusion fosters genuine equity remains open to critical reflection, especially when some celebrations receive greater public attention or institutional support than others.

The issue of equality versus equity becomes particularly relevant in light of Indonesia's situation, and John Rawls's theory of justice offers a comprehensive framework for assessing how public institutions distribute religious benefits and burdens. Rawls's model rests on three interrelated principles, i.e. the greatest equal liberty principle, the equality of opportunity principle, and the difference principle, which must be applied proportionately, with lexical priority granted to basic liberties (Rawls, 1971, p. 61). In situations of conflict, Rawls insists that the principle of equal liberty must precede the equal opportunity principle, which in turn takes precedence over the difference principle, ensuring that justice does not become rigid but remains structured around fairness (McGill, 1990). Rawls's “original position” and “veil of ignorance” require individuals to design institutions without knowing their social position, religion, or advantages, thus protecting universal liberties such as freedom of religion and expression. In this framework, justice is a condition to be realised through law and institutional design, not a mere procedural formality (Friedrich, 1963). When applied to Indonesia's religious-holiday system, this theoretical lens highlights the tension between formal equality in the recognition of six official religions and the substantive inequities experienced by minorities. Although each religion receives state-recognised holidays, the majority faith continues to enjoy broader accommodation and societal support (Hamayotsu, 2014; Hefner, 2017). From a Rawlsian standpoint, such disparities raise concerns about whether the existing system upholds the greatest equal liberty principle for all Indonesians or implicitly privileges some groups in ways that do not improve the condition of the least advantaged. Rawls's emphasis on social justice also resonates with the fifth principle of Pancasila, reinforcing the expectation that state policies should empower weaker groups and correct structural imbalances rather than entrench them (Said & Nurhayati, 2021).

Moreover, public holiday allocation has significant social and economic implications that affect communities differently (Amavilah, 2009; Porto, Espinola, & García, 2019). Holiday closures influence governance, labour arrangements, and educational operations, and while these effects are felt nationwide, religious minorities often face disproportionate pressures due to limited institutional accommodation of their observances, especially when their holidays overlap with mainstream working or school schedules. Rawls's difference principle stipulates that social and economic inequalities – such as unequal visibility or logistical support for religious practices – are permissible only if they yield reciprocal, not necessarily equal, benefits for the least advantaged. Rawls explicitly rejects the idea that justice requires identical outcomes; rather, justice demands balanced, mutually beneficial arrangements that improve the life prospects of those structurally disadvantaged (McGill, 1990). When Indonesian holiday policies require minority groups to expend greater effort, negotiate workplace flexibility, or organise observances without comparable state support, the framework risks failing Rawls's “justice as fairness” standard. By Rawls's logic, institutions must take active steps to correct inequalities, empower marginalised groups, and guide policymaking toward the protection of those most affected by structural imbalance (Friedrich, 1963; Kelsen, 2011).

Existing scholarship enriches our understanding by exploring different facets of Indonesia's religious accommodation. Phahlevy et al. (2023) assess how the Constitutional Court balances majority aspirations with judicial neutrality in religious cases, revealing both alignment with societal values and the need for consistent legal reasoning. Nasution and Fauzie (2022) documents grassroots exchanges, such as gift-giving between Muslim and non-Muslim neighbours during Eid, that strengthen communal harmony. Pratama and Sakhiyya (2019) uncover ongoing discrimination against minority groups, illustrating that legal frameworks alone cannot eradicate social biases. Khaerurrozikin (2015) analyses how non-Muslim holidays like Christmas pose theological and practical dilemmas for some Muslims, highlighting tensions between pluralism and doctrinal purity. However, despite these rich strands of scholarship, there remains a clear research gap in examining Indonesia's public holiday system specifically as a legal mechanism for operationalising religious equality and equity.

The novelty of this research lies in its integration of doctrinal legal analysis and Rawlsian justice theory to evaluate religious accommodations through both legal and normative dimensions. Its theoretical contribution lies in advancing Rawlsian justice theory within legal scholarship by demonstrating how principles of equal liberty and fairness can be operationalised to assess state-designed religious accommodation mechanisms. The objective of this study is to investigate Indonesia's approach to religious pluralism and constitutional guarantees of religious freedom through its system of public holidays for six officially recognised religions, evaluating whether this framework achieves equality or equity. The analysis proceeds through three main parts: first, establishing the legal framework governing public holidays and religious freedom in Indonesia; second, evaluating how equality and equity function in practice within this framework; and third, examining how the system aligns with Rawlsian justice to determine whether reform is necessary and in what direction.

This study uses a doctrinal legal research method combined with a qualitative systematic literature review (SLR) of sociolegal studies to map how equality and equity operate within Indonesia's public holiday and religious-freedom regime. The mixed approach was chosen because doctrinal legal method permits close doctrinal reading of statutes, decrees, court decisions and administrative practice while the SLR provides systematic, transparent coverage of academic and policy debates that inform those legal structures. The SLR component followed ROSES reporting principles to ensure replicability and rigour (Haddaway, Macura, Whaley, & Pullin, 2018). Guided by the paper's objectives, search strings combined terms such as “religious freedom”, “public holiday”, “religious discrimination”, “cuti bersama”, “Pancasila”, “religious tolerance”, “labour law and religion”, “Blasphemy Law”, and “indigenous belief” using Boolean operators. Searches were conducted across major international and national databases including Scopus, Web of Science, HeinOnline, and Google Scholar, supplemented by specialist law journals, university repositories, official government websites (such as the annual Cabinet decree on public holidays), and targeted grey literature. Retrieved records were screened for topical relevance and empirical or doctrinal contribution; exclusion criteria removed items that lacked substantive engagement with religious freedom, public holiday policy, or workplace practice. The final corpus for analysis comprised 65 sources. Of these, 53 items (80.0%) are peer-reviewed journal articles or law reviews (e.g. Schwartzman, 2014; Hefner, 2017; Hakim, Qurbani, & Wahid, 2023), 8 items (12.3%) are books or book chapters (e.g. Rawls, 1971; Friedrich, 1963), 2 items (3.1%) are conference proceedings or working papers (e.g. Arifin, 2018; Pratama & Sakhiyya, 2019), 2 items (3.1%) are other grey literature/working papers, and 1 item (1.5%) is an official government document (Secretary Cabinet RI, 2024).

Analytically, this study adopts a doctrinal legal approach that connects the formal doctrinal structure of Indonesia's laws with literatures on how they operate in practice, including their social effects and lived implementation. Primary legal materials such as constitutional provisions, statutes, and joint ministerial decrees were examined to identify how the principles of equality and equity are articulated within the public holiday and religious-freedom framework. These doctrinal findings were then interpreted alongside empirical and normative literature, policy reports, and documented case studies through thematic coding. The coding process combined predefined categories linked to the research focus, such as formal equality, substantive accommodation, institutional implementation, and religious pluralism, with inductively emerging themes including political instrumentalisation, regional regulatory divergence, workplace expression of religious rights, and digital-era contestation. The doctrinal legal approach combined with empirical literature studies enabled triangulation between law on the books, law in action, and scholarly interpretation, ensuring that legal claims were continuously tested against documented practice and social evidence. The resulting synthesis establishes a foundation for evaluating the system against Rawls' theory of justice, particularly the principles of equal basic liberties and fairness, which will guide the policy recommendations.

Indonesia's Indonesia's legal framework governing public holidays and religious freedom is built upon international human rights obligations, constitutional guarantees, national legislation, labour regulations, and administrative decrees. These legal foundations collectively determine how religious holidays are recognised, protected, and implemented across the country. The system reflects Indonesia's commitment to ensuring that religious observances are accommodated both in public policy and in workplace arrangements, while balancing individual rights with administrative and labour considerations.

At the international level, Indonesia's commitments begin with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which affirms in Article 18 the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and its manifestation “in teaching, practice, worship, and observance.” The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), ratified through Law No. 12 of 2005, reinforces this in Article 18(1), recognising the freedom to adopt and manifest one's religion. Article 18(3) allows limitations only when “necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.” These instruments form the backbone of Indonesia's obligations to protect religious practices, including holiday observance. However, as Tadros (2022) stresses, international commitments must be domesticated through robust national regulatory frameworks; otherwise, they remain symbolic rather than effective.

Indonesia's 1945 Constitution provides the principal domestic guarantees for religious freedom. Article 28E(1) ensures every individual is “free to choose and to practice the religion of his/her choice,” while Article 28E(2) protects freedom of belief and expression of conscience. Article 29 strengthens this framework by affirming that the Indonesian state “shall be based upon the belief in the One and Only God” and must “guarantee all persons the freedom of worship.” These constitutional clauses provide the normative foundation for recognising religious observances and justify subsequent legislation governing public holidays. Yet constitutional guarantees require substantive legal enforcement to be meaningful, a concern highlighted by Arifin (2018), who warns against relying on symbolic constitutionalism without effective implementation.

National legislation further operationalises constitutional rights. Law No. 39 of 1999 on Human Rights reiterates the freedom to choose and practise religion under Article 22, obliging the state to guarantee this right. Meanwhile, Law No. 1 of 1965 on the Prevention of Religious Abuse and/or Blasphemy – although aimed at preventing sectarian conflict – also indirectly shapes the landscape of religious observance. Article 1 prohibits the public promotion of interpretations deemed to deviate from the “main teachings” of recognised religions. While criticised for its restrictive implications (Alvian, 2023; Hasani & Halili, 2022), the law nonetheless evidences the state's role in structuring the religious sphere. Salim (2017) notes that such legal instruments must maintain a careful balance, ensuring public order without unduly restricting legitimate religious practice.

The labour framework also plays a crucial role in supporting religious observance. Law No. 13 of 2003 concerning Manpower defines standard working hours – seven hours per day for a six-day workweek or eight hours for a five-day workweek – setting the baseline for regulating rest periods, including public holidays. ^[1] In certain sectors, such as energy and mineral resources, exceptions apply through Ministerial Decree No. 234 of 2003, but the overarching structure still ensures predictable scheduling to accommodate holiday observance. These provisions create a framework within which employers must integrate public holidays and allow religious practices.

Article 80 of the Manpower Law mandates that employers “provide sufficient opportunities for workers… to perform religious worship.”^[2] Although it does not explicitly reference public holidays, this provision is widely interpreted as requiring accommodation for religious observance, including major religious events (Manitra & Prabandari, 2024). In practice, many private employers adjust working hours during Ramadan or other major religious periods (Fatahillah & Anugrah, 2019), reflecting the law's operational impact. Enforcement is strengthened by criminal sanctions under Article 81 of the Job Creation Law (amending Article 185 of the Manpower Law), which prescribes imprisonment or fines for employers who obstruct religious practices. This enforcement mechanism underscores the seriousness of ensuring that employees are not prevented from observing religious holidays or performing required rituals.

The administration of public holidays is formalised through annual ministerial decrees. The Joint Decree of the Ministry of Religion, Ministry of Manpower, and Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform sets out each year's national holidays and collective leave. For 2025, these are regulated through Joint Ministerial Decree 1017/2024, No. 2/2024, and No. 2/2024. The Minister of Manpower's Circular No. M/6/HK.04/XII/2024 operationalises these provisions for the private sector and emphasises that “Public holidays are officially designated by the government and must be observed as non-working days, unless exemptions apply.” The Circular also outlines obligations regarding compensation for employees who work on public holidays, ensuring consistency with national labour law.

At the regional level, governors and local authorities issue implementing circulars to ensure uniform application across provinces. For instance, the Governor of NTB's Circular No. 800.1.6.2–6 instructs regional employers and agencies to comply fully with the national circular. Such regional instruments help harmonise observance across Indonesia's diverse provinces and ensure that religious holiday policies are followed in both public and private sectors.

Therefore, Indonesia's legal framework for public holidays and religious freedom demonstrates a layered approach integrating international commitments, constitutional guarantees, statutory protections, labour rights, and administrative coordination. This framework provides clear mechanisms for recognising and implementing public holidays (see Figure 2), ensuring that both public institutions and private employers respect the religious observance rights of individuals. Yet effective implementation requires consistent coordination among national ministries, employers, and regional authorities to translate legal guarantees into practical protections within Indonesia's vast and diverse society.

Indonesia's Indonesia's public holiday and religious freedom system reflects an attempt to institutionalise both equality and equity within a pluralistic context. The recognition of six officially acknowledged religions Islam, Protestantism, Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism is embedded in constitutional guarantees, particularly Articles 28E and 29 of the 1945 Constitution. Scholars such as Hall (1992) argue that formal equality requires equal legal status and treatment among recognised communities, and this principle is visible in the allocation of public holidays for major religious celebrations including Eid al-Fitr, Christmas, Vesak, Nyepi, and Chinese New Year. This framework is further grounded in Pancasila's first principle and the state narrative of religious pluralism supported by Abdillah (2013) and Madung and Mere (2021), suggesting that Indonesia's public holiday calendar functions not only as a scheduling device but as a symbolic affirmation of national religious identity.

The annual Joint Ministerial Decree, most recently No. 1017/2024, No. 2/2024, No. 2/2024, operationalises this constitutional philosophy by establishing a fixed holiday calendar. Scholars such as Tadros (2022) and Farisi (2014) note that the recognition of religious diversity must be embedded in state structures to move beyond rhetoric. In practice, this legal regularity reflects Indonesia's commitment to pluralism, seen also in the motto Bhinneka Tunggal Ika which frames diversity as a unifying element. Yet the presence of formal equality in policy also invites reflection on whether legal recognition alone is sufficient to create religious inclusivity.

Formal recognition is accompanied by measures intended to support substantive participation in religious life. Schwartzman (2014) notes that state neutrality in religion involves creating social conditions in which each group can openly participate in public life. Indonesia's education system, with its emphasis on Pancasila and interfaith values, promotes awareness and early interreligious understanding (Achadi & Fithriyana, 2020; Subaidi, 2020). Collective leave arrangements further support faith observance by providing time off beyond fixed holidays, particularly around Eid al-Fitr, Nyepi, and Christmas. Articles 79 and 85 of Law No. 13 of 2003 instruct employers to respect religious observance in workplaces, attempting to prevent professional disadvantage and social inequality in religious practice.

The framework of equality is therefore intertwined with the principle of equity. Scholars such as Pratama and Sakhiyya (2019) argue that equal treatment is insufficient where differences in religious calendars and observance practices require tailored accommodation. The Indonesian example demonstrates this through practices that adjust for demographic realities, for instance extended leave during Eid al-Fitr for the Muslim majority while maintaining recognition and protection for minority holidays. The application of Pancasila and the national ethos of humanity and justice, as highlighted by Madung and Mere (2021), illustrates that the system aspires to be both uniformly inclusive and responsive to contextual needs.

Equity becomes particularly clear when examining how minority practices are accommodated. Nyepi, for example, requires a full day of silence and immobility in Bali, affecting travel, infrastructure, and public spaces beyond the Hindu community. Scholars such as Salim (2017) suggest that meaningful equity requires adjusting societal functioning to the needs of marginalised practices rather than merely acknowledging them symbolically. The Nyepi experience reflects how the system attempts to safeguard religious practices even when they temporarily suspend ordinary national activity, indicating that minority experience is not entirely subsumed by majority expectations.

Another example is Imlek or Chinese New Year. This holiday gained public recognition only after the discriminatory Presidential Instruction No. 14 of 1967 was replaced by Presidential Decree No. 6 of 2000. Its status today reflects a process of restorative policy and aligns with Hefner's (2017) observation that true equality sometimes requires redress for prior exclusion. Recognition of Confucianism and its associated cultural practice therefore demonstrates that the dual model of equality and equity includes historical correction as part of religious governance, as explored by Madung and Mere (2021).

Despite these efforts, several barriers disrupt the intended duality of equality and equity. Scholars point to legal contradictions that undermine constitutional guarantees of freedom. While Articles 28E and 29 of the Constitution enshrine religious freedom, the Blasphemy Law (Law No. 1/PNPS/1965) and the 2008 Joint Ministerial Decree on Ahmadiyah impose restrictions affecting minority expression (Jufri, 2021; Marzuki, 2019). ^[3] Hakim et al. (2023) describe a dissonance between personal religious conviction and the lack of institutional respect for divergent religious identities. The gap between inclusive constitutional ideals and exclusionary legislative tools raises questions about the depth of equality achieved by the public holiday system.

Beyond legal inconsistencies, the state's emphasis on maintaining religious harmony often results in unequal treatment. Salim (2017) critiques the harmony-first approach for prioritising stability over rights. While public holidays formally acknowledge religious diversity, access to leave in practice can depend on local demographics and employers’ discretion (Vinkasari, Cahyani, Akbar, & Santoso, 2020). Studies by Setiabudi, Wibowo, and Paskarina (2021) further suggest that hierarchical attitudes persist socially, reinforcing majority norms and making equality conditional rather than guaranteed.

Political instrumentalisation further complicates policy consistency. Cheung (2004) and Putri (2011) observe that holiday decisions may reflect political bargaining rather than neutral legal reasoning. Local leaders may prioritise dominant religious expectations to secure support, and this dynamic is echoed in research by Hamayotsu (2014) and Junaedi (2022) which describes religion as a strategic resource in elections. It follows that the public holiday system can become sensitive to political power rather than being grounded exclusively in pluralistic commitments.

Even among officially recognised religions, disparities persist, and exclusion becomes more visible for communities outside the recognised framework. The 2017 Constitutional Court decision allowing indigenous believers to register their faith did not lead to equivalent holiday recognition, which maintains structural hierarchies (Hannan, 2022). Similar patterns are observed in the experiences of Shi'a communities and other marginalised sects (Miichi & Kayane, 2020), suggesting that formal recognition does not translate uniformly into substantive equality.

Differences also emerge through uneven implementation at national and regional levels. Decentralisation allows local governments discretion in regulating religious life, leading to varied interpretations of equality (Muharam, 2020). Bureaucratic barriers affecting whether Christian holidays are recognised in predominantly Muslim regions or vice versa illustrate that implementation often depends on sociopolitical environments rather than constitutional principles (Yasin & Mantu, 2021).

Workplace practices reveal similar disparities. Despite legal obligations to facilitate equal leave, private employers at times align leave policies with majority practices, creating practical challenges for minority adherents. Samosir, Sianturi, and Kakunsi (2022) and Muharam (2020) identify unequal leave enforcement, while Hakim et al. (2023) argue that these patterns reflect broader institutionalised social norms that continue to privilege dominant religious identities.

Finally, societal perceptions and discourse shape how equality and equity are experienced. Social media provides a space for both inclusive dialogue and exclusionary rhetoric (Iriansyah, Gafallo, & Adiansyah, 2022). Public reactions to contested holiday decisions, sometimes intensified online, reveal how tolerance is often interpreted as passive non-interference rather than meaningful respect or solidarity (Halim, 2021). The absence of strong interfaith engagement suggests that the system, while symbolically inclusive, remains challenged in cultivating deeper mutual understanding. Discussions by Khotimah and Sukron (2023) illustrate how alternative conceptions of religious moderation may support a more inclusive interpretation of public recognition.

Taken together, Indonesia's public holiday framework clearly reflects a dual commitment to equality – through formal recognition of all six religions – and to equity – through differentiated allocations that aim to accommodate distinct religious practices (see Figure 3). Yet this duality remains largely aspirational, as the normative balance between equal treatment and equitable accommodation is difficult to sustain in practice. The coexistence of equality and equity within the legal design therefore represents both a constitutional achievement and an ongoing administrative challenge. Beyond this, persistent structural barriers, uneven regional implementation, political instrumentalisation of religious recognition and unresolved legal inconsistencies continue to hinder the realisation of genuine religious freedom for all communities. These challenges highlight that constitutional guarantees and statutory recognition alone cannot eliminate disparities in access, visibility and institutional support. Responding to these issues requires reforms that ensure public institutions translate formal entitlements into meaningful, lived equality by safeguarding fair access to time, space and resources for worship across all religious groups. The next section builds on this foundation by outlining concrete policy options and institutional designs to address these shortcomings.

Reflecting on the findings of the previous sections, it becomes clear that Indonesia's current religious freedom framework, particularly as implemented through its public holiday policies, still reflects more symbolic inclusion than substantive equality. Rawls reminds us through the Liberty Principle that each individual is entitled to an equal scheme of basic liberties, including freedom of religion, and that such liberties must not be compromised even for perceived societal benefits (Maloberti, 2015). If we apply Rawls' veil of ignorance approach, imagining policy-makers unaware of their own religious identity, it becomes difficult to justify a system where some citizens automatically receive state-recognised public holidays while others must negotiate for their religious observances. In that hypothetical neutral position, decision-makers would rationally prefer a framework where religious recognition is equitable and not tied to demographic dominance. This reflective exercise, though philosophical, exposes a practical gap: Indonesia's current model does not yet achieve Rawls' standard of justice as fairness.

Moreover, Rawls' emphasis on public reason is particularly relevant in Indonesia's pluralistic society, where policymaking must appeal to shared civic values rather than the dominant religious framework (Howe, 2013). Public reason demands fairness in policy justification so that citizens of all faiths can reasonably accept the outcome without feeling subordinated to majority preferences. When viewed through this lens, existing practices that privilege certain religions create asymmetry in access, recognition, and symbolic belonging. As Grey (2018) notes, stability in a pluralistic society is sustained when citizens trust that institutions act fairly and without bias. Therefore, aligning Indonesia's religious holiday system with Rawls' theory is not merely about compliance with abstract justice – it is essential for nurturing long-term social cooperation and national unity grounded in equal civic respect.

Moving toward reform, the first step is adopting a flexible holiday system that recognises each citizen's equal moral worth by granting a fixed number of individually selectable religious leave days. This is not meant to remove existing major religious holidays, but rather to complement them with an optional system that benefits those who currently face structural disadvantages. Such a policy is directly aligned with the Liberty Principle and Fair Equality of Opportunity, because it ensures that religious adherence does not become a practical burden or a workplace liability (Rodrigues, 2024). The Ministry of Manpower and the Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform could jointly issue regulatory adjustments requiring both public and private employers to operationalise this entitlement. If designed transparently and enforced uniformly, this policy would transform formal guarantees of religious freedom into lived equality.

Second, Rawls' Difference Principle provides an ethical justification for strengthening state support for minority religious celebrations. If the public holiday structure inevitably benefits some groups more than others, then additional measures must be introduced to ensure that inequalities work to the advantage of the least privileged (Brčić, 2010). This means the Ministry of Religious Affairs, together with regional governments, should allocate logistical and symbolic support – such as public space access, visibility in state media, and modest funding – for minority religious festivities. Jufri (2021) has shown that unequal state support contributes to ongoing marginalisation in practice. By intentionally reversing the disadvantage faced by minorities, Indonesia operationalises Rawls' requirement that social arrangements compensate those who start from structurally weaker positions.

Third, the reform process must include legal guarantees ensuring that workplaces cannot arbitrarily deny religious leave requests or penalise minority believers for their observances. Although the Constitution formally protects religious freedom, its application remains fragmented, particularly for minority employees (Siringoringo, 2022). Rawls is clear that rights must be institutionally protected, not merely stated (Sunaryo, 2022). Therefore, amendments to labour law should include explicit clauses prohibiting religious-based leave discrimination and establishing sanctions and reporting mechanisms. Local labour inspectorates could be empowered to verify compliance, particularly in regions with known patterns of religious exclusion. Through such enforcement, religious freedom becomes not just an abstract right, but a guaranteed lived reality.

Fourth, Rawls' framework also calls for participatory policymaking grounded in mutual respect. Policies affecting religious communities should not be draughted solely from the perspective of majority identity but should involve structured consultations with recognised religious organisations, local interfaith forums, and civil society groups (Setiabudi, Paskarina, & Wibowo, 2022). This aligns with Rawls' notion of reasonableness, which emphasises cooperation among free and equal citizens (Taşkin, 2023). The Ministry of Religious Affairs, together with Bappenas, could institutionalise annual policy dialogues ensuring that future adjustments reflect evolving demographic and cultural needs rather than political sensitivities. Such deliberation also increases legitimacy and reduces perceptions of state partiality.

Finally, consistent with Rawls' understanding of stability based on justice, the reforms must be subject to continuous monitoring and evaluation to ensure their relevance and fairness (Grey, 2018). A joint national task force – consisting of representatives from the Ministry of Religious Affairs, Komnas HAM, labour institutions, and academic experts – could oversee implementation, collect empirical data, and address grievances. As Asy'ari (2021) argues, adaptive religious policy is necessary in dynamic multicultural societies. Rawls would agree: a just institution is not one that claims perfection, but one willing to revise itself when evidence shows inequity.

Therefore, reforming Indonesia's religious public holiday system through a Rawlsian lens invites both humility and responsibility. It requires acknowledging that justice is not achieved when only the majority feels represented, but when every citizen – regardless of belief – experiences equal recognition and dignity in law, policy, and daily life. By grounding reforms in Rawls' Liberty Principle, public reason, and the Difference Principle, Indonesia can move beyond symbolic pluralism toward substantive religious justice. This path is not merely theoretical – it is concrete, implementable, and necessary for sustaining a democratic and plural nation committed to fairness for all.

Indonesia's public holiday and religious freedom framework demonstrates an important but incomplete attempt to uphold both equality and equity. Formal equality is reflected in the constitutional recognition of six religions, yet the empirical reality shows that equity remains the more pressing concern. Legal inconsistencies, decentralised policy disparities, political instrumentalisation and limited understanding of substantive religious tolerance collectively restrict the capacity of minority groups to enjoy their constitutionally guaranteed liberties. Viewed through Rawls's theory of justice as fairness, this gap between formal recognition and lived experience confirms that basic liberties cannot be meaningfully realised when institutional arrangements reproduce disadvantage. The findings therefore highlight a structural imbalance: Indonesia's current legal design achieves symbolic equality but struggles to deliver substantive equity, especially for smaller or regionally dispersed religious communities.

The broader implications of this research lie in showing how Rawls's Liberty Principle and Difference Principle can be used not only to critique Indonesia's system but also to guide institutional reforms that improve outcomes for those least advantaged in religious terms. Practically, the study demonstrates that equal recognition of holidays is insufficient without mechanisms that ensure fair access to time, space, resources and public visibility for all religious groups. Flexible religious leave schemes, strengthened enforcement of workplace protections, targeted support for minority celebrations, and clearer legislative harmonisation are concrete measures that operationalise Rawlsian commitments in the Indonesian context. These findings therefore carry significant normative and policy implications: states must design systems that translate constitutional rights into everyday realities, ensuring that legal equality is accompanied by equitable institutional arrangements that actively reduce structural disadvantages.

Finally, the study's contributions extend beyond Indonesia and offer lessons for other religiously diverse societies seeking to balance equality and equity within public holiday regimes. By grounding the analysis in Rawls's theory, the research provides a generalisable evaluative framework that can be applied across different constitutional, political and cultural contexts. Countries facing similar tensions between majority religious practices and minority accommodation can adopt the same principles – public reason, prioritisation of basic liberties, targeted support for the least advantaged, and ongoing institutional review – to design fairer holiday systems. This cross-context applicability reinforces the value of the findings: they not only diagnose Indonesia's challenges but also offer a portable model for reconciling symbolic equality with substantive equity in pluralistic societies.

The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to ASTA Research Center, Faculty of Law Universitas Indonesia and Faculty of Law Universitas Diponegoro for their invaluable support in writing this article.