---

Principal Petitioner Sabela Gayo as Chairman of the Indonesian Procurement Lawyers’ Association (APPI) delivering principal points of the petition for judicial review of the National Education System Law on Monday (2/7) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

Chairman of the Indonesian Procurement Lawyers’ Association (APPI) Sabela Gayo filed a judicial review of Law No. 12/2012 on Higher Education, Tuesday (4/7). Sabela reviews a number of articles, among which are Article 1 number 2; Article 17 paragraphs (1) and (2); Article 24 paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6); Article 25 paragraph (2), paragraph (3), paragraph (4), paragraph (5), and paragraph (6), Article 26 paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), and (7); Article 28 paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), and (7); Article 29 paragraph (2); Article 36; Article 39 paragraph (1); Article 42 paragraph (4); Article 43 paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4); Article 44 paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4); Article 59 paragraphs (2), (3), (4), and (5) of the a quo law.

Sabela requested that professional associations be declared the only organizations legally authorized to provide professional education. Previously the Petitioner also filed a similar case on Monday (2/7) on the National Education System Law (Sisdiknas Law).

APPI as a legal entity of a legitimate Society recognized by the Ministry of Law and Human Rights of the Republic of Indonesia, said Sabela, has the right to develop itself through education and training programs in the field of public procurement law in order to improve the quality of advocates/public lawyers to have competence as procurement lawyers in accordance with IFPSM international standards. Therefore, the provision on professional education as regulated in Law No. 20/2013 on the National Education System (Sisdiknas Law) has limited the space for APPI and deprived the constitutional rights of APPI to develop itself through education and training programs of procurement lawyers in order to improve the quality of life of its members

In addition, Sabela cited the Constitutional Court Decision No. 95/PUU-XIV/2016 that, in essence, requires the Special Education of Professional Advocate (PKPA) in cooperation with the Law Higher Education of minimum B Accreditation, as opposed to the elucidation to Article 24 paragraph (2) of the Higher Education Law that reads, "The professional program is the responsibility and authority of the Ministry, other Ministries, LPNK, and/or professional organizations responsible for the quality of professional services."

"The elucidation to Article 24 paragraph (2) of the Higher Education Law proves that professional organizations have the authority and responsibility in running the professional education and not the opposite as has been happening in the field since the issuance of the Constitutional Court Decision No. 95/PUU-XIV/2016 that the Higher Education is the one authorized to hold professional education," he said explaining case No. 47/PUU-XVI/2018.

Therefore, the Petitioner requested that the Panel of Justices declare professional education not a scope of the National Education System as regulated by the Higher Education Law. In addition, he also requested that the Panel of Justices declare professional education the absolute authority of professional associations in determining quality standards and certification procedures of professional education in accordance with their respective professions and not the authority of universities. 

"Declare that the Higher Education is not authorized in granting professional titles. Declare that professional associations are the only organizations entitled and authorized by law and legislation in determining the standards of professional service quality standards. Declare that the professional associations are the only organizations entitled and authorized to grant professional titles," he said.

Legal Standing

Responding to the petition, Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna asked the Petitioner to clarify the legal standing, whether he represented an individual or a professional association. In addition, Justice Palguna viewed the Petitioner as primarily discussing information about professional associations as opposed to constitutional damages that had an impact on him.

The same sentiment was also expressed by Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams who criticized the legal standing of the Petitioner. According to him, the position of the Petitioner was ambiguous, because the legal standing [was described] as an individual and also as a legal professional association entity. "[The position that you take in relation to this should be emphasized]," he explained. (ARS/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)

 

---