INDONESIAN TEACHERS CORPS CONSIDER 2008 BUDGET VIOLATED CONSTITUTION
Image


Indonesian Teachers Corps Management Board (PB PGRI)  considered the ammount of budget/allocation of educational fund approximately 12% of the total 2008 State Budget (APBN) 2008, had violated the mandate from the 1945 Constitution. In fact, the 1945 Constitution instructed to prioritize the allocation for education fund to at least 20% of the State Budget or the Regional Budget, as regulated in Article 31 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution.

“Even though the lawmakers for Act No.45/ 2007 (on the 2008 State Budget) realized, with many reasons, could not allocate the educational fund up to 20% of the State Budget, still it violated the stipulation in Article 31 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution,” said A. Muhammad Asrun, the lawmakers of the Indonesian Teachers Corps, also emphasized that, the Constitutional Court through their Verdict No.026/PUU-III/2005 had warned the Government to obey the stipulation in the 1945 Constitution.

That was stated by A. Muhammad Asrun as he read the petition for the trial of Act No.45/2007 on 2008 State Budgeting in the early examination trial at the Constitutional Court Building, Jakarta, Wednesday (26/3). The Petition was filed by the Indonesian Teachers Corps in relation to the Government failing to fulfill the 20% allocation for education in 2008 State Budgeting.

Besides that, the 2008 State Budgeting that according to the Indonesian Teachers Corps included the teachers and educators also special service education salary component in the education fund allocation, had reduced the fund allocation for the improvement of the education itself. “It is a big mistake that if the education fund covers the ‘teachers and educators salaries’, because for that in many areas the salaries component was included in the General Allocation Fund [DAU (Dana Alokasi Umum)],” emphasized Asrun.

For that the Teacher Corps demanded the Constitutional Court to state that the 2008 State Budgeting violated Article 31 Paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution and therefore did not have a binding legal power.

As a response to the request, Constitution Justice H. Harjono stated that the Constitutional Court had never granted this kind of petition before but so far as things concerning education. Now the petitioner demanded the Constitutional Court to anull the entire 2008 State Budgeting. Therefore, Harjono demanded the Petitioners to make strong rationalism to support the petition. Harjono also demanded the Petitioners to reassure that the 2008 State Budgeting still existed until now because at the moment the Government was planning to make a revision on the State Budgeting. “if that exists, I am worried that the legislation is no longer valid,” said Harjono.

On the advices given by the Panel of Constitutional Justices, the Petitioners were given 14 days in order to improve the petition. (dhini/ardli/Yogi Djatnika)


Thursday, March 27, 2008 | 10:25 WIB 231