Article 71 of Act No. 20/2003 on National Education System is reviewed by the applicant Dj. Siahaan, in the Constitutional Court (MK), Wednesday (29/2), has entered the trial verdict. In this case the Court rejected the Applicant states in its entirety. This was stated by the chairperson Moh. Mahfud MD at Plenary Room, Jakarta.

The Petitioner states that Article 71 of Law 20/2003 which states, "Organizing the educational unit was set up without the permission of the Government or regional government as referred to in Article 62 paragraph (1) shall be punished with imprisonment of ten years and / or a maximum fine of Rp 1,000,000,000.00 (one billion rupiah) ". Article was tested by the Applicant to the Preamble, Article 31 paragraph (1), paragraph (2), paragraph (3), paragraph (4), and paragraph (5) of the 1945 Constitution.

Then, the Petitioner also argues that the existence of Article 71 of the Act has hampered the efforts and steps the Applicant to the intellectual life of the nation. While the existence of such article, the Petitioner can not run the college Young University is a good field.

"Article a quo criminalizes the actions taken by the Petitioner. Though the action petition is a form of participation in order to petition the nation’s intellectual life," wrote the Court, while citing the Petitioner. Based on the arguments of Petitioner, the Court needs to consider the constitutional issues that must be answered is whether the requirements of the permit from the government in education and convict someone who organizes education without permission is against the constitution. Therefore, based on the 1945 Constitution states, every citizen is entitled to an education, and obliged to attend compulsory primary education, and government finance. In the framework of national education, the government should also prioritize the education budget at least twenty percent of budget revenues and expenditures and the budget revenue and expenditure. "Therefore, pursuant to the provisions of the 1945 Constitution, the primary responsibility for the intellectual life of the nation, including advancing the science and technology are on the government," said Court.

Further, the Court also added that the 1945 Constitution did not expressly prohibit or require people to take a role in providing education, but the 1945 Constitution and the rights guaranteed to every citizen to participate in government. “Implementation of the education unit by citizens, private legal entities and / or voluntary community groups are one form of citizen participation in government guaranteed by the constitution," said Court.

On the other hand, the Court states that given the responsibility by the constitution for the nation’s intellectual life may be authorized by the constitution to establish and conduct a national education system that enhances faith and piety and noble character in the context of the intellectual life of the nation.

The constitutional provision, the Court continued, implies that the state can set the level properly organized and responsible as mandated by the constitution. Countries are also obliged to protect the rights of citizens to obtain legal certainty regarding the status within the formal education who participated in an educational unit.

Therefore, the Court is reasonable and according to the constitution, the state set the permissions for the holding of formal education and non-formal organizations established by the government and society, in order to provide legal certainty for citizens to follow the formal education or non-formal as well as a diploma and a certificate of competence recognized by the state.

According to the Court, formal and non-formal educations were unlike the case with the implementation of informal education by providing the public with no particular competence certification. "In such case, the state can not interfere as long as no harm students and does not interfere with public order," said Court.

The state authorities to prevent education that harm society, the state through legislation made arrangements that are administrative or criminal. "Based on the above considerations, the Court considered the arguments of the legal petition are groundless," said Court. (Shohibul Umam / mh/Yazid.tr)