The Constitutional Court conducted a judicial review on Law concerning National Education System and Law concerning State Budget related to the education budget yesterday (28/11) at 10.00 hours West Indonesia Time at the Plenary Hearing Room of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia, 2^nd Floor, at Jalan Medan Merdeka Barat No. 6 Central Jakarta with the agenda of Hearing the Statement of the Government and the DPR. The government was represented by the Minister of National Education, Bambang Sudibyo, Dody Nandika (Secretary General of the Ministry of National Education) and Pangeran Munta (Acting Head of. Legal and Organizational Bureau), meanwhile the representative of the DPR could not attend the hearing. The petitioners in this case, Dra. Hj. Rahmatiah Abbas and Prof. DR. Badryah Rivai, S.H. were present accompanied by their attorney, Hj. Elza Syarief. 

In this hearing, the attorney of the petitioners explained the subject matter of petition filed by the Petitioners that Article 49 paragraph (1) of Law Number 20 of 2003 which reads: Education fund, other than salaries for teachers and costs for official education, shall be allocated in a minimum amount of 20% of the State Revenues and Expenditures Budget in the education sector and in a minimum amount of 20% of the Regional Revenues and Expenditures Budget, is extremely contradictory to Article 31 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution which reads: The state shall prioritize the educational budget by allocating at least 20% of the State Revenues and Expenditures Budget and of the Regional Revenues and Expenditures Budget in order to meet the needs for the management of education.

The government in making its response through the Minister of National Education, Bambang Sudibyo, stated that the constitutional rights and authorities of the Petitioners were not impaired upon the coming into effect of Article 49 paragraph (1) of Law Number 20 of 2003 and Law Number 18 of 2006. The increase of education budget does not have impact on the increase of salaries and other allowances of school and university teachers serving as civil servants because the salary and allowance budgeting system for civil servants has been included in the civil servant expenditures structure. The increase in education budget does not have any relationship with the increase in salaries and allowances of school and university teachers. The government was also of the opinion that the petition for the judicial review of the Petitioners was obscure particularly with regard to Law Number 18 of 2006 because they could not point out the content material of paragraphs, articles and or parts of the aforementioned law which is deemed contradictory to the 1945 Constitution. (Vien)