---

A lecturer of Faculty of Engineering of Brawijaya University, Suharto, as Principal Petitioner delivering the petition principal for the judicial review of Law on Teachers and Lecturers on Thursday (2/11) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

Law No. 14/2005 on Teachers and Lecturers is once again challenged before the Constitutional Court (MK) on Thursday (2/11) afternoon. Faculty of Engineering lecturer of Brawijaya University, Suharto, was registered as Petitioner of Case No. 87/PUU-XV/2017 that reviews Article 48 paragraph (3) of an a quo law. 

The Petitioner feels that his constitutional rights were violated by the enactment of Article 48 paragraph (3) of the Teachers and Lecturers Law. The a quo article reads, "The requirement to occupy an academic professorship is the academic qualification of a doctorate." According to the Petitioner, the validity of the article prevents him from being promoted. 

"[I] have worked for almost 30 years and have been hindered by the law I am trying to review. [Because of] this law, [I]practically cannot be promoted. So a question arises, whether people like [me] cannot get promoted because of the law," explained Suharto. 

Suharto said, according to the research results, promotion or position advancement has very wide implications for the welfare of lecturers. "Our research shows that the level of performance of the national system is directly proportional to the level of welfare of the faculty, including teachers [and lecturers]," said Suharto. 

Suharto claimed the articles being reviewed discriminatory and ambiguous. He explained that the ambiguity of the word \'qualification\' has caused misunderstandings that harmed the Petitioner. "This kind of interpretation in general terms [is a] misunderstanding in state management, especially in the field of education and especially higher education, where it results in inefficiency," explained Suharto.

Therefore, in his petitum, the Petitioner requested that Article 48 paragraph (3) of the Teachers and Lecturers Law be revoked and declared contradictory to the 1945 Constitution. 

Justices’ Advice 

With respect to the arguments of the Petitioner, Constitutional Justice M.P. Sitompul responded to the Petitioner\'s legal standing. "Your legal standing as Petitioner must be elaborated. What are your constitutional damages [that compelled you] to file this petition related to the rights stipulated in the articles of the 1945 Constitution?" asked Justice Manahan. 

In addition, Justice Manahan highlighted the reasons behind the petition. He suggested that the Petitioner further describe the constitutional damages that he suffered. "The reasons for this petition are also described in this petition clearly and elaborated, so what you want is clear. For example, Article 48 paragraph (3) is to be interpreted like this or omitted altogether. It must be clear in the reason of this petition," said Justice Manahan. 

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo deems the format of the petition already in accordance with the construction of petitions in the Constitutional Court. Then, regarding the legal standing of the Petitioner, Justice Suhartoyo advised the Petitioner to select and include Constitutional Court decisions in the legal standing and to relate them to the constitutional damages suffered by the Petitioner. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---