H. Machmud Masjkur of Salafiyah Foundation and Sister Maria Bernardine of Santa Maria Foundation were present on Thursday (11/11) in Jakarta in the second hearing session to review the National Education System Law, known as UU Sisdiknas, with the agenda of examining the revised petition.
Jakarta, MKonline - The Constitutional Court held the second session of judicial review of Law Number 20 Year 2003 on the National Education System on Thursday, Nov. 11, at the Court’s Plenary Session Room in Jakarta. The petition registered with the Court’s Registrar’s Office under registration Number 58/PUU-VIII/2010 was filed by Machmud Masjkur of the Salafiyah Foundation and Sister Maria Bernardine of Santa Maria Foundation.
In the session, the petitioners, who were represented by their lawyer Taufik Basari, revealed that they would revise the petition by putting additional articles or paragraphs of the 1945 Constitution, as they would serve new grounds for the review. “We have included Article 31 Paragraph (2) and Article 28D Paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution in addition to Article 31 Paragraph (2),” Taufik explained.
Taufik added that the word “can,” as laid out in the articles a quo of the National Education System Law, causes multi-interpretation. Article 55 Paragraph (4) of the National Education System Law, for instance, states that, “Community-based educational institutions can receive technical assistance, subsidies in the form of fund, and other resources in a fair and equitable manner from the central and/or provincial government.” “The word ‘can’ is multi-interpretive, as it can be construed that the government can provide assistance, or that it will be all right if the government does not provide assistance,” Taufik said.
Yet the 1945 Constitution, Taufik continued, did not clearly explain that whether or not the government necessarily had to eliminate the tuition of public schools. “Petitioners—as organizers of private education—are entitled to have the same rights as stated in the articles a quo. Yet, the word ‘can’ in the articles a quo generates the possibility of multi-interpretation in the field, thus causing legal uncertainties,” he said.
With that said, the petitioners, Taufik explained, would change one of the petitions, requesting Article 55 Paragraph (4) of the National Education System Law to be stated as conditionally constitutional. “We are requesting as such so that the Constitutional Court provides interpretation for the word ‘can’ in the articles a quo,” Taufik explained.
The panel of justices of the Constitutional Court, consisting of justices M. Arsyad Sanusi (panel chief), Maria Farida Indrati, and Muhammad Alim (panel members), validated 11 pieces of evidence submitted by the petitioners. “In the next trial session, the petitioners are planning to present five experts and one factual witness. Therefore, kindly prepare the list of the experts and witness,” Arsyad said.
The petitioners, as organizers of private education, believed that their constitutional rights had been violated due the enforcement of Article 55 Paragraph (4) of National Education System Law. The petitioners also explained the difference in enforcement of the articles a quo in the field between private and public education organizers. (Lulu Anjarsari/mh)
Thursday, November 11, 2010 | 15:24 WIB 316