The Constitutional Court rejected all decide the petition filed by students associated with the judicial review of Law No. 12 of 2012 on Higher Education, at the Plenary Court on Tuesday afternoon (29 / 04). "Rejecting all over the petition in its entirety," said Hamdan Zoelva read the verdict in case 33/PUU-XI/2013.

Based on the petition , according to the Court , there are two issues that answered the constitutionality of the Court , whether the autonomy of higher education and community college that is a legal entity as provided in Article 64 and Article 65 of Law 12/2012 is contrary to the 1945 Constitution . Additionally it also , whether accountability of higher education as defined in Article 63 in conjunction with Article 78 of Law 12/2012 which is not set on the structure of authority to impose sanctions in case of violation of these provisions , contrary to the 1945 Constitution .

On the issue , the Court has considered the decision of the case No. 103/PUU-XI/2012, on December 12, 2013 and , among others, states as follows :

higher education .... as stipulated in Law 12/2012 did not lead to the neglect of constitutional obligations and responsibilities of the state in education . The formulation of norms in the Law quo remains authorizes the government to control the PTN BH . Through instruments quo Act and various Government regulations established by the Government as mandated in Law quo , autonomy , autonomy both academic and non - academic autonomy to colleges within the meaning of Article 64 and Article 65 of Law 12/2012 does not will release the responsibility of the state in education .

Commercialization practices are feared by the Applicant will not happen as long as government has the authority to control the BH state universities , among others, by setting standards for Higher Education unit operating costs as referred to in Article 88 of Law quo . According to the Court , PTN BH form as stipulated in Law quo can be justified because it does not release the obligations and responsibilities of the constitutional state in the intellectual life of the nation, especially the right of citizens to acquire and gain access to education .

States should ensure that higher education is affordable by educational paradigm implemented that are not for profit , prioritizing aspects of public services, and do not make education a commodity business and private goods . State responsibility in educating the nation , does not mean that the state is obligated and responsible to pay for the entire cost of education . Obligation of the state to finance the entire cost of education for elementary education as specified in Article 31 paragraph ( 2 ) of the 1945 Constitution , while for other levels of education , in addition financed by the state are also possible participation to co-finance public education .

Therefore , according to the Court , the public participation in the financing of education is not fair against the constitution . For the sake of his qualities , each citizen must also take responsibility to follow him to achieve the desired quality . This means that the State has the primary responsibility of the community while also participating in assuming that responsibility .

 ( vide Decision No. Court . 11-14-21-126 and 136/PUU-VII/2009 , 31Maret dated 2010) .

Based on these considerations , the Petitioners ‘ argument that the provisions on accountability in the administration of the college would not be effective because of the lack of structure authorized to impose sanctions when a violation is not right . According to the Court , the law has set the sanctions for non-performance of the principle of accountability . As to the structure and the authorities to impose sanctions remains the domain arrangement of a technical nature in the relevant ministries . Thus the argument of the Petitioners no legal grounds .

Earlier in the prime trial , the Petitioners argue that judging college management autonomy and the legal entity of the organizers of the college as stipulated in Article 64 and Article 65 , and the absence of structures authorized to impose sanctions of Article 63 in conjunction with Article 78 of Law who tested contrary to Section 28C paragraph ( 1 ) , Article 28D paragraph ( 1 ) , Article 28E ( 1 ) , and Article 31 paragraph ( 1 ) , paragraph ( 3 ) , and paragraph ( 5 ) of the 1945 Constitution . (Panji Erawan / mh )