Legal Counsel of the Petitioner Kriya Amansyah were listening to the advice from Constitutional Justice Harjono in the intial session for the review of Act No. 20 of 2003 on National Education System (Act on Sisdiknas), Wednesday (23/2/11).
Jakarta, MKOnline – Act No. 20 of 2003 on National Education System (Act on SIsdiknas) was once again pleaded for a review to the Constitutional Court (The Court), Wednesday (23/2) in The Court’s Building. The Case registered in the Registry Office of The Court with No. 14/PUU-IX/2011 was submitted by Andi Maddusilla.
Andi Maddusilla was on the record for participating as a candidate in Regent and Vice Regent Candidacy in Gowa Regency, South Sulawesi. Through his legal counsel, Kriya Amansyah, The Petitioner argued that his constitutional rights had been infringed due to the existence of Article 61 paragraph (1) of Act on Sisdiknas. In Article 61 paragraph (1) of Act on Sisdiknas, it was stated that “A certificate is in form of a diploma or a certificate on competence.”
“We plead The Court to provide a constitutional interpretation in the term of definition for information letter as a substitute of a diploma. So in the bottom line, we want to ask for a clarification from The Court to define the form of a diploma. Can a reference letter to have been at school as a substitute of a diploma be considered as a form of a diploma?” said Kriya in representing the Petitioner.
Responding to the statement from the Petitioner, Chairman of the Panel of Justices, Harjono, questioned the Petitioner’s constitutional rights that was infringed by the existence of shool reference letter. Harjono explained that a constitutional right was a right as guaranteed by the 1945 Constitution.
“For example to violate Article 1 paragraph (3) that is a lawful State, how that stipulation was considered to violate the state law, which law then infringed by the stipulation that someone who fails to show a diploma could make a substitution with a reference letter from a school. Then Article 27 paragraph (1). What is it about? Please look at Article 27 paragraph (1)! You do not explain this but to refer to that Article. This is in term of substance which should become the focus of your request, at least it could urge the Justices that your case is indeed a case related to the constitutionality of an act against the Constitution, the damage is a constitutional damage,” he explained.
Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Hamdan Zoelv explained that within the fil, The Petitioner had not focused in showing their constitutional damage. “I have not noticed a description that is really focused. These certificate in form of a diploma and a certificate of competence. Where Is the infringement with the Constitution? SO, please sharpen your file,” he explained.
In their petition, The Petitioner argued that the reference letter to have attended a school as a substitute of a diploma was used in the candidacy stage in the regional election held by Gowa Election Commission. On contrary, the Commission in Gowa Regency qualified one candidate pair that used that reference letter in that stage without having been verified to the educational institution which issued the letter.
According to the Petitioner, that had given a bad name to the educational world because it did not refer to the Article 61 paragraph (1) of Act on Sisdiknas. The Petitioner also considered that should there be an alumnus using the reference letter to have attended the school as a substitute of a diploma, that would be a violation to the norms within the law. The stipulation in Article 61 paragraph (1) of Act on Sisdiknas was an article potential to have a qualification as damaging the students alumni who had undergone the stage of elementary, medium, high school and also had passed the final examination, that included the Petitioner.
The stipulation a quo also gave advantages to the school alumni who had only managed to undergo the elementary, medium and high education without having to pass the evaluation on final examination and to be given a reference letter as a substitute of a diploma. Therefore, The Petitioner considered the article a quo was disproportional and thus violated the Article 31 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. (Lulu Anjarsari/mh)
Thursday, February 24, 2011 | 15:11 WIB 214