Discrimination profession experienced by the graduate students of educational Institutions of Power (LPTK) since enactment of Article 9 of Law no. 14 Year 2005 on Teachers and Lecturers presented to the Constitutional Court. The case was filed by Number 95/PUU-X/2012 Student LPTK, namely Aris Winarto, Achmad Hawanto, Heryono, Mulyadi, Anga Damayanto, M. Khoirur Rosyid, and Siswanto.

Through a lawyer, Muhammad Soleh, the Petitioners argue that their constitutional rights have been violated by the enactment of Article 9 of Law no. 14 Year 2005 on Teachers and Lecturers. Article 9 of Law no. 14 Year 2005 on Teachers and Lecturers said "academic qualifications referred to in Article 8 is obtained through higher education degree or diploma program four". According to the applicant, the teacher profession is a specialized field therefore takes special skill and it may not be obtained in non LPTK lectures.

"Article 9 of Law no. 14 Year 2005 on Teachers and Lecturers do not provide protection and legal certainty to the applicant, the absence of guarantee for all graduates LPTK as the only scholar who could enter the education profession, then according to the Petitioner in violation of Article 28D paragraph (1 ) of the 1945 Constitution," said Soleh.

Furthermore, Soleh said Article 9 of Law No. 14 Year 2005 on Teachers and Lecturers was contrary to Article 28H Paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution, it was because students should LPTK guaranteed to be a teacher as long as he can get away following the PPG, as well as medico guaranteed to become a doctor. Article 9 of Law no. 14 Year 2005 on Teachers and Lecturers reflect the differentiation status and treatment, injustice and uncertainty of law and discriminate against the applicant.

"It should not be easy to become a teacher let alone an instant. Students LPTK is molded to be a teacher, not only taught science in the field of program of study, but also taught good science, and these subjects are not taught in LPTK. When this happens, students LPTK not feel threatened, but feel the competition is not fair," he explained.

Responding to the petition, Chief Justice Muhammad Alim and Members of the Constitutional Court and Harjono Ahmad Sumadi Fadlil suggest improvements. Fadlil arguments of the petition reveal a concrete case, but the Court did not examine the concrete case. "Look, the location, what is discrimination? It seems like there are concrete events showed that in the matter of unfair competition in employment among graduates LPTK with non-LPTK graduates. Not such a case testing the law, "said Fadlil.

Meanwhile, Harjono revealed that the Petitioner to clarify the meaning of the word "professional" in the article a quo. "Professional what? Professional bachelor's degree as a profession or a professional educator and noneducator? If the legal professional law degree. Now here is a professional in whom? Professionals him as her professional educators or as non-teaching staff? If this is through professional education, so that legal scholars, say, but in a lot of professional law degree. There are prosecutors, no notary; from legal scholars cannot do it. It must go through the education profession. But if that meant the teaching profession and the profession is not, it does not have a law degree, but the first IKIP it directly as the education profession. So the problem is the issue of how to interpret the problem? Therefore, I have no explanation, the explanation is quite clear that it was a problem. But if an explanation was then able to explain what I mean before, then the problem is a matter of practice, "he said. (Lulu Anjarsari / mh/Yazid.tr)