Board of Constitutional Justice Harjono (Chairman) accompanied by Muhammad Alim and Hamdan Zoelva (each as members) hearing to the revision of petition read by the Petitionersâ Counsels Kriya Amansyah and Andi Maddusitta in the second session of the review of Article 61 paragraph (1) of Act 20/2003 on National Education System, Jakarta (24/3).
Jakarta, MKOnline - Starting from the loss in the democratic party of regional election in Gowa Regency, South Sulawesi 2010, candidate pair Andi Maddusita Andi Idjo-Jamaluddin Rustam then filed a petition to the Constitutional Court (The Court). The Court in its decision on July 27, 2010 stated that the petition could not be accepted (niet ontvankelijk verklaard) as it was over the deadline.
At that time, Andi Maddusita Andi Idjo-Jamaluddin Rustam pair among others argued that Ichsan Yasin Limpo could not prove their formal education requirements in form of original diploma which became a requirement for candidacy. The Petitioners doubted the validity of the diploma Yasin Limpo attached at that time.
This former Gowa Regent candidate then filed another case at The Court without being accompanied by his pair because his presence now was not questioning his loss in the election. Instead, the argument proposed by Andi in his request, was related to the process of candidacy stage concerning the reference letter in lieu of diploma used by a candidate. Andi sought to review the constitutionality of the material of Act 20/2003 on National Education System (Act on Sisdinas).
The second session held by The Court on Thursday (24/3) was scheduled to verify the petition revision for case 14/PUU-IX/2011. Through his legal counsel, Kriya Amansyah, Andi Maddusita had made some revision according to the advices from the Board of Justices in the previous session. After that, the board of justices would bring the case to the Justice Meeting. “The next process will be bringing the case to the Justice Meeting and the schedule for the next session will be determined later,” informed Chairman of the Panel, Harjono.
Even though so, Constitutional Justice Hamdan Zoelva advised an improvement in the second petitum. “Petitum point 2 in the beginning has to state to be against the 1945 Constitution and does not have a binding legal force,” advised Hamdan. The revision of the petition, said Hamdan, might be revised on the spot by using handwriting. “So, because there is no more time for revision, you make on-the-spot revision, alright,” continued Hamdan.
As in the previous session, Kriya Amansyah argued that their constitutional rights had been damaged due to the enactment of Article 61 paragraph (1) of Act on Sisdiknas stating that “A Certificate is in form of a Diploma and Certificate of Competence.” This article was considered to be against the Article 1 Paragraph (3) and Article 31 Paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.
Andi argued that during the one stage of the Gowa Election, the Gowa Commission let one candidate to use a reference letter of having attending school as a replacement of a diploma without verifying to the issuing institution. According to Andi, that had given the education world a bad name as it did not refer to the Article 61 paragraph (1) of Act on Sisdiknas. The stipulation in the article was potential to be qualified as causing loss to the alumni of the students who had been through the elementary, middle, and high education also had been through the final examination as the Petitioner did (Nur Rosihin Ana/mh/YDJ)
Thursday, March 24, 2011 | 17:37 WIB 206