---

Judicial review of Act 12 of 2012 on Higher Education re-tested to the Constitutional Court on Thursday (30/5) at the Plenary Court. Number of cases 33/PUU-X/2012, filed by the applicant consisting of Moh. Junaidi (first Petitioner), Ahmad Rizky Mardhatillah Umar (Petitioner II), Aida Milasari (Petitioner III), and Yogo Danianto (Petitioner IV).

 

In the trial, the Petitioners presented two experts, namely HAR Tilaar as well as education experts Dian Puji Simatupang as jurist. In a statement, Tilaar described the management of higher education in the Higher Education Act resulted in the removal of a student from a poor family, so the law is contrary to the 1945 Constitution.

 

In addition, Tilaar also reveals the fact that Indonesia is still a developing country with a poverty rate that is still high enough so that there should be the widest possible opportunity to all citizens to develop his talent. Moreover, higher education is an investment because it has a “rate of returns” is quite large as cultural capital, social capital and economic.

 

Meanwhile, Dian Puji Simatupang stated emergence Higher Education Legal Entity as set out in the Higher Education Act, creating the paradox of rationality in legal reasoning lead to contradiction in terms. This is caused by the government to provide legal assignment to the state university to perform the functions of higher education is affordable to the community. In fact, continued Dian, a legal entity having its own importance because it has separated the wealth of the country`s wealth.

 

In the trial, attended college representatives are legal entities, such as UI, UGM, and IPB, as Related Parties. UGM representative denied the petition submitted by the applicant. UGM judge incorrectly stated the Petitioner`s argument that the Law no. 12/2012 on Higher Education (Corporate Law) is not identical with Act 9/2009 on Legal Education (UU BHP). While IPB assess Higher Education Act is not the liberalization of higher education and does not violate the constitution.

 

At the previous hearing, Petitioner`s attorney, said Pratiwi Febri, legal norms contained in the Company Law has been set up through the technical stuff, especially related to financial management, which in turn eliminates the main purpose or nature (raison de`etre) higher education and gave birth to some of the nation injustice. In fact, since some public universities to become a legal entity based on Company Law, such as the University of Indonesia (campus Petitioner I) and Gadjah Mada University (campus Petitioner II), has spawned a number of campus policy that ultimately add to the burden of funding education to students.

 

 

Therefore, the claim or appeal petition, the Petitioners ask the Court to grant the entire application. "Declare Higher Education Act in particular against the opening paragraph of the 1945 Constitution, Article 28C Paragraph (1), Article 28D paragraph (1), Article 28E (1), Article 28 paragraph (2), Article 31 paragraph (1) and (5) Act of 1945," said Pratiwi. (Lulu Anjarsari / mh)

---