Sabela Gayo as Petitioner explaining his revision in the follow-up hearing of the judicial review of the Law on National Education System (Sisdiknas Law), Monday (16/7) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The Constitutional Court (MK) held a follow-up hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 20/2003 on National Education System (Sisdiknas Law), Monday (16/7). The second hearing of case No. 45/PUU-XVI/2018 is the petition revision.

Sabela Gayo as Petitioner explained the revision made according to the recommendations of the Panel of Justices in the previous session. Without legal counsel, Sabela explained that he had revised the legal standing, to representing a public legal entity. Furthermore, he also removed several articles to review. "So the articles to review are Article 15; Article 20 paragraph (3); Article 21 paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6); Article 25 paragraph (1); Article 67 paragraph (1); and Article 68 paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Sisdiknas Law," he explained in the session presided over by Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat.

In relation to the principal issue of the case, Sabela focused on Article 15 of the National Education System Law that regulates the types of education including general, vocational, academic, professional, religious, and special education. According to him, with the a quo article, the professional education becomes the scope of the national education system regulated by the national education system and then becomes part of the scope of the higher education.

"In this case, it is of course contrary to the Petitioner\\'s constitutional rights as the Chairman of a professional association, the Indonesian Procurement Lawyers’ Association, which currently is also conducting professional education programs, namely the Procurement Lawyers Special Training (PKPP) and Procurement Law Education," he explained.

The Petitioner, Chairman of the Indonesian Procurement Lawyers’ Association (APPI), requested that the implementation of professional education be the absolute authority of the professional association. He considered the provision on professional education as regulated in the a quo law limiting the space for APPI. He claimed that it was because the a quo provision had deprived the constitutional rights of APPI as a legal professional associations entity to develop itself through educational programs and training for procurement lawyers in order to improve the quality of life of its members. For this reason, the Petitioner requested that the a quo articles be declared contradictory to the 1945 Constitution and be revoked. (ARS/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)