Although the petitioners who filed a case No. 021/PUU-IV/2006 concerning a judicial review of Law No. 22/2003 about National Educational System known as UU Sisdiknas toward the 1945 Constitution (UUD 1945) were said to have a legal standing, the Constitutional Court did not accept their request (nietontvankelijk verklaard) as stated in the Court session on Thursday, February 22, 2007.

One of considerations as noted by the Majelis of Judges that there was no constitutional loss affecting the petitioners upon Chapter 53 Article (1) UU Sisdiknas toward UUD 1945. According to the Majelis, since no law arranges the legal body of education as mentioned by the petitioners, thus no lawful substance could be argued.

The text of Chapter 53 Article (1) UU Sisdiknas: “formal officers selected and/or educational institutions developed by the Government or Society form a formal educational institution.”

In addition, Majelis also noted that the law about a formal educational institution as affirmed in Chapter 53 Article (4) UU Sisdiknas was relevant with UUD 1945, thus one needed to pay attention to several aspects, including:

First, the functional aspect of the state is to provide education for its people. In this sense, the state and government are responsible for education of the citizens as written in Chapter 31 Articles (2), (3), (4) and (5); and the rights and obligations of citizens in having education as stated in Chapter 31 Articles (1) and (2), Chapter 28C Articles (1) and (2); and Chapter 28 Article (1) of UUD 1945.

Second, from a philosophical aspect, it is concerned about the development of a high quality and meaningful national educational system.

Third, from a sociological aspect, it is about the reality of educational officers including those in private foundations, organizations, and others.

Fourth, from judicial aspect, it should not create conflict with other laws.

Fifth, it is to implement state responsibilities and it is not to lessen or to avoid a state constitutional responsibility in education thus it would not burden society or/and educators.

Sixth, people’s aspiration had to be attended during a law making process, specifically concerning education. Therefore, it would not cause conflicts and new problems in educational world. (NM)