Autonomy in academic or scientific can only thrive when there is autonomy in non-academic fields. Autonomy of Higher Education (PT) can work well if it gets sufficient funding and authority to manage the organization to conduct activities independently Tri Dharma University. PT is not going to get and find the truth when shackled by bureaucracy and regulations. "In addition, the importance of autonomy for higher education is in order to achieve high quality education effectively and efficiently because of the autonomy will be created bureaucratization in college governance."
The government thus opening statement on judicial review of Law No. 12 Year 2012 on Higher Education (Higher Education Act) made by the Secretary of the Ministry of Education and Culture, Professor Ainun Na `im, Ph.D., in a Constitutional Court (MK), Tuesday (12/11/2012) afternoon. The trial for the third time the case Number 103/PUU-X/2012 particulars of Article 65, Article 73, Article 74, Article 86 and Article 87 of Law No. 12 Year 2012 on Higher Education (Higher Education Act) and Case Number 111/PUU- X/2012 Happenings Testing Article 50, Article 65, Article 74, Article 76, Article 90 of the Law on Higher Education. The agenda heard the testimony of the Government.
Ainun Na’im before the Constitutional Court Achmad Sodiki Panel (panel chairman), Harjono, M. Akil Mochtar, Hamdan Zoelva, Mohammed Alim, Anwar Usman and Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi, further stated, Article 63 of the Law of Higher Education explicitly states: "university management autonomy held by principles: a. accountability; b. transparency; c. profit d. quality assurance, and e. effectiveness and efficiency. "College Accountability is a form of accountability for the activities carried colleges to all stakeholders. In carrying out the activities, the college does not aim for profit but social goals.
"So the rest of the implementation of the results of operations should be plowed back to the college concerned to increase capacity and / or improve the quality of education services in a sustainable manner," said Ainun.
Furthermore, Article 88 states: "The government has set the standard unit operating costs of Higher Education periodically to consider: a. achievements of the National Standards for Higher Education; b. Course types and c. cost index region. "Operational Standard region will be calculated based on the operational costs required to implement the relevant PT education activities in any program of study that meets national standards of quality higher education for one school year.
Autonomous management of PT referred to Article 64 of the Law of Higher Education does not condone the practice of education and freedom commercialization own set of costs to be borne by the public. "Thus, the nature of university autonomy is not the freedom to do the commercialization and privatization in higher education," Ainun proposed.
According to him, increasing the competitiveness of State College (PTN) in a global environment requires a breadth and flexibility of the principle of autonomy in the management of higher education. Therefore, the Higher Education Act sets PT management consists of limited autonomy, semi-autonomy, and autonomy. PT with limited autonomy has academic autonomy. PT with the semi-autonomous status has academic autonomy and some nonacademic management. Universities with autonomous status have academic autonomy and nonacademic. Autonomy PT gives space to act quickly for PT.
Article 65 paragraph (1) Higher Education Act states: "university autonomy Implementation as referred to in Article 64 may be selectively granted based on performance evaluation by the Minister to state universities by implementing Financial Management Patterns of Public Service by establishing a state university or a legal entity to produce a quality of Higher Education."
The provisions of Article 65 paragraph (1) are clear that PT is not autonomy but autonomy PT uniform selectively in accordance with the conditions of the college concerned. "So, in contrast to the autonomy of higher education as defined in the Law Legal Education," said Ainun.
The government provides funding to state universities for operational, investment, institutional development, and funds to support students as the cost to attend higher education. Allocation of funds for state universities in the state budget is based on the status of the management of PTN. PTN with limited autonomy due to its characteristics as a Technical Implementation Unit (UPT), the allocation of funds made by the prevalence of the allocation of expenditure for UPT. PTN with semi-autonomous status as it follows the pattern of the financial management of the public service agency; the allocation of funds is done by following the prevalence of allocating expenditure for Public Service Agency (BLU). As for the status of an autonomous state universities because they were given legal status, allocation of funds follows a specific pattern of expenditure in the form of subsidized higher education, social support implementation of higher education, and other forms, in accordance with legislation.
Principle PTN is a non-profit corporation with the purpose of a social nature. While the legal principles and objectives of the company are profit oriented or profit-oriented. PTN legal entity despite having autonomous status but remain bound and subject to the provision of higher education established in the Law on Higher Education, among others, the principles of accountability, transparency, non-profit, effectiveness, and efficiency.
Higher education organized by PTN legal entity, not a private matter, difficult to access, market-oriented, and discriminatory. Legal forms for PT is a mandate of Article 53 paragraph (1) of Law No. 20 Year 2003 on National Education System, the legal existence of Article 53 of the Law on National Education System, the Constitutional Court has in several decisions that strengthen verdict refuses to -review Article 53 is.
"Thus, the existence of legal public universities is both legal and legitimate under the Act and the National Education System by the Constitutional Court’s decision," said Ainun.
The government appealed to Court states Petitioner does not have legal status (legal standing). In addition, the appeal court rejected the petition of the Petitioner. Then, the Higher Education Act states that the material be tested to the Petitioners, does not conflict with the 1945 Constitution.
To note the review of Higher Education Act Number 103/PUU-X/2012 filed by M. Nurul Fajri, Candra Feri Caniago, Depitriadi, Roky Septiari, Armanda Pransiska, and Agid Sudarta Pratama. While Case number 111/PUU-X/2012 filed by Azmy Uzandy, Khairizvan Edwar, Ilham Kasuma, Mida Yulia Murni, Ramzanjani, and Ari Wirya Dinata. The next hearing will be held on Wednesday, January 16, 2013. (Nur Rosihin Ana / mh)
Tuesday, December 11, 2012 | 17:57 WIB 148