Plenary ruling hearing of the judicial review of the Teacher and Lecturer Law on Wednesday (28/3) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The petition by Suharto, a lecturer at the Faculty of Engineering of Brawijaya University in Malang, who reviewed Article 48 paragraph (3) of Law No. 14/2005 on Teachers and Lecturers was finally rejected by the Constitutional Court (MK). 

"The verdict heard, rejects the Petitioner’s petition for the whole," said Deputy Chief Justice Anwar Usman as the Plenary Chairman accompanied by the other constitutional justices in the ruling hearing on Wednesday (28/3). 

The Petitioner reviewed Article 48 paragraph (3) of the Teacher and Lecturer Law that reads, "The requirement to occupy an academic professorship is the academic qualification of a doctorate." The Petitioner, who has worked as a lecturer for almost 30 years, felt that his promotion had been hindered by the enactment of the a quo provision. 

In response to the Petitioner’s argument that the phrase "academic qualification" in Article 48 paragraph (3) of the Teacher and Lecturer Law not providing legal certainty for associate professors, the Court is of the opinion that the phrase actually provides legal certainty not only to the Petitioner but also to everyone who will occupy a higher position or level of education. 

"Academic qualification is an absolute requirement that can be seen and assessed from one\'s education. The argument of the a quo Petitioner emphasizes the legal requirement for the Petitioner who want a new norm because the norm of the law petitioned for a quo petition is less favorable to the Petitioner who is a professor," said Constitutional Justice Aswanto who read the opinion of the Court. 

The Court is of the opinion that different practices in countries that apply different systems are not universal criteria that can be applied by default to all countries. Moreover, they are used to assess the constitutionality of a norm of the law that is subject to a constitutional system based on the Constitution of each country. 

"Even if there are universally accepted academic rules, it cannot be used to judge the constitutionality of a rule of law in a country. Such academic rules may be useful as comparative material, with a view to improving the educational system, especially higher education. But clearly it cannot be used as a basis to declare a norm of law contrary to the Constitution," said Aswanto reading the Decision No. 87/PUU-XV/2017. 

Based on all the above considerations, the Court is of the opinion that there is no unconstitutionality issue in the substance of Article 48 paragraph (3) of the Teacher and Lecturer Law. Therefore, according to the Court, the Petitioner’s petition is unreasonable according to law. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)