Article 49 paragraph (1) of Act No. 20 Year 2003 on National Education System (UU Sisdiknas) so long as it is related to the phrase “educators’ salaries and” violated the 1945 Constitution. That was stated by the Constitutional Court (MK) in a trial for verdict statement for case No. 24/PUU-V/2007, Wednesday (20/2), in Jakarta.
 
Article 49 paragraph (1) UU Sisdiknas stated,  “Education funds besides educators’ salaries and service education allocated at minimum of 20% of the State Budgeting (APBN) on education sector and at minimum of Provincial Budgeting (APBD)". By the verdict of the Constitutional Court meant that, educators’ salaries, as a part of education components, should be included in the drafting of the education budget in APBN and APBD.

Furthermore, according to the Constitutional Court in the legal consideration for the verdict of the case filed by Rahmatiah Abbas and Badryah Rifai, if the educators’ salaries were not included in the education budget in the drafting of APBN and APBD also the education budget was less than 20% in the APBN and APBD, then the legislation and regulation concerning the budgeting violated Article 31 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution.

Apart from the good intention as the background, the Constitutional Court said that the formulation of the meaning in Article 49 paragraph (1) of UU Sisdiknas became inconsistent with the formulation of meaning in Article 1 number 3 of UU Sisdiknas, which stated: “National education system is the total educational components that is co-related together to reach the aim of national education” and Article 1 number 6 of UU Sisdiknas stated: “Educators are education workforce that has the qualification as teachers, lecturers, counsellors education caretakers, widyaiswara (university lecturers – ed.), tutors, instructors, facilitators, and other names related to the specialties, also participates in conducting education”. Besides that, the formulation of Article 49 paragraph (1) of UU Sisdiknas had narrowed the philosophical meaning of Article 31 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution, which should not be done, considering the 1945 Constitution was the highest norms for the country and State.

By the inclusion of educators’ salary component in the calculation of the budget dor education, according to the Constitutional Court, it would be much easier for the Government and the Parliament to carry the obligation of fulfilling the budget for education to a minimum of 20% in the State Budget. If the educators’ salary component was excluded, the budget for education in the State Budget 2007 was only 11,8%. Meanwhile by the inclusion of educators’ salary component, the budget for education in State Budget 2007 could reach 18%.

Because of that, by the Verdict, the Constitutional Court emphasised that there should not be any reasons to hinder or postpone the fulfillment of the stipulation of the budget to a mininmum of 20% for education, both in the APBN or APBD in each province, regency, and city throughout Indonesia according to the stipulation of Article 31 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution.

Related to the other request of the Petitioners that was the trial for Act of APBN for Budget Year 2007, the Constitutional Court stated that the Act had a different characters with the common legislation, among others had the character of eenmalig that only valid for one year and it was over. Because of that, the request should be stated can not be accepted (niet ontvankelijk verklaard).

Towards the verdict of the Constitutional Court for case No. 24/PUU-V/2007, three Constitution Justices had dissenting opinions, they are Constitution Justice H. Abdul Mukthie Fadjar, Maruarar Siahaan, and H. Harjono. (Luthfi Widagdo Eddyono / Yogi Djatnika)