The Constitution Court (MK) conducted a judicial review on Act No. 20 Year 2003 about National Education System (UU Sisdiknas) and Act No. 18 Year 2006 about State Budgetting 2007 (UU APBN), Wednesday (12/12), in the Plenary Court Room Constitution Court.

The trial was opened by reading the opening statement by the Petitioner Legal Counsel, Elsa Syarif who stated that Article 49 paragraph (1) Act on National Education System violated Article 31 paragraph (4) 1945 Constitution because it had made the teacher component as exception from the education budget which in Article 31 paragraph (4)was stated 20 percent of the National Budget or the Provincial Budget.

Meanwhile, Expert presented by the Petitioner, Prof. Satya Arinanto, considered the editorial of Article 49 paragraph (1) Act on National Education System contained a weakness because of the word ”besides” by means of making an exception. ”While according to the Act No.10 year 2004, the use of the word “beside” infact means to include. Whereas for an exception of something should use the word ”Except” consistently,” explained the Professor from The University of Indonesia.

In the trial the statement of mind of the PGRI was also heard. They requested The Consitution Court to ruled out the Petitioners request with the reason of there were still many things related to education besides the teachers’ welfare that needed Government Attention. ”Meanwhile, the statement from the Department of National Education (Depdiknas) shows that if the teachers’ salaries are included in the education budget which in Article 31 paragraph (4) 1945 Constitution stated to a minimum of 20 persen from the State Budget and regional budgets, actually the total budget for education almost reach the requirement therefore we are worried that it will erase the spirit of increasing the budget for education,” explained Head of PGRI, Abdul Azis Husein.

For the next trial, Prof. Dr. Jimly Asshiddiqie, S.H. requested the Petitioner and the Government to give the detail of the advantages and disadvantages arose if the petition was granted, to provide more evidences in form of Details of the State Budget and Regional Budget if teachers’ salaries were included or excluded in the budget for education, and additional information from the Government about the calculation examples from other countries education budgets that includes and excludes the teachers’ salaries component, also how ready the Department of National Education was for the realisation of education budget according to the mandate in Article 31 1945 Constitution. (Kencana Suluh Hikmah/Yogi Djatnika)