The minister’s expert staff on Education and Culture Regulation Chatarina Muliana Girsang was present to provide information on behalf of the Government in the judicial review hearing of the Law on National Education System, Monday (15/10) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.
The Constitutional Court held another hearing on professional education on Monday (15/10) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. In the third hearing of cases No. 45/PUU-XVI/2018 and 47/PUU-XVI/2018, the minister’s expert staff on Education and Culture Regulation Chatarina Muliana Girsang was present to speak on behalf of the Government.
The Government was of the opinion that the Petitioner had not read the Law Number 20 of 2003 on the National Education System being reviewed. Chatarina said that the provision of Article 15 of the National Education System Law and its Elucidation is concerned with the education system that divided education into general, vocational, academic, professional, vocational, religious, and special education. Those types of education are part of the education system mandated by Article 31 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution. As a system, Chatarina added, the National Education System Law must be read in its entirety. In this case, professional education has been regulated by the National Education System Law by giving roles to professional organizations in the administration of education in general.
"In this case, professional education has been regulated by the National Education System Law by giving roles to professional organizations in the implementation of education in general. Thus, the Petitioner\'s Petition, which only concerns with a number of articles as petitioned for review, reflects an incomplete understanding of the national education system," he explained.
Furthermore, Chatarina said that the provision of Article 20 paragraph (3) of the National Education System Law regulates education programs that can be managed by universities. In relation to the Petitioner\'s argument, the provision of Article 20 paragraph (3) of the National Education System Law is an open norm marked by the word \'can,\' which means that universities are not always able to offer or organize professional programs, but must meet certain requirements.
"In this context, Article 20 paragraph (3) is related to Article 5 of the National Education System Law, especially in relation to the profession. Article 54 paragraph (1) of the law states that the participation of the community in professional education in education includes the participation of individuals, groups, families, professional organizations, entrepreneurs, and community organizations in the implementation and quality control of education services," he said.
Furthermore, Chatarina stated Article 2 paragraphs (1) to (6) of the National Education System Law, in essence, is related to the authority to award professional or vocational academic degrees and degrees as well as give administrative sanctions. Regarding this provision, she added, the Government was of the opinion that the provision of Article 21 of the National Education System Law was relevant to the provision of Article 20 of the National Education System Law, that is, the higher education offered by universities had the authority to give titles. That means higher education providers also has the authority to give titles. This provision does not exclude professional organizations participating in providing professional education, including granting titles.
In addition, Chatarina explained that Article 24 paragraph (2) and Article 26 paragraph (6) of the Higher Education Law constitute a concretization of the provisions regulated by the National Education System Law on the implementation of professional education, as well as the awarding of professional and vocational academic degrees and titles as well as administrative sanctions.
Cannot Be Separate
On the same occasion, the Constitutional Court also held a judicial review hearing of the Higher Education Law (Case No. 47/PUU-XVI/2018) also petitioned by Sabela Gayo. Director General of Science and Technology Institution of Higher Education Patdono Suwignjo, representing the Government, stated that professional education could not be separate from Higher Education. The Petitioner\'s wishes, he explained, so that professional organizations can organize professional education independently is a baseless desire. Professional organizations can participate in the provision of professional education that offer professional certificates and competency certificates. This is because the implementation of professional education is carried out by universities by cooperating with organizations, one of them being professional organizations. "Therefore, the issuance of professional certification is carried out by universities that collaborate with professional organizations," he explained.
Based on the Elucidation of Article 44 paragraph (1) of the Higher Education Law, Patdono explained that the certificate of competence is not for advocates or procurement lawyers but for other skills, both in and outside the field of study. Thus, he stressed, it is not appropriate for the Petitioner to equate the competency certificate with the professional certificate.
"More specifically in relation to the [legal] standing of the Petitioner in arguing that the procurement lawyer is part of the advocate, the Government on this occasion asserts that the implementation of advocate education [cannot be offered] only by advocate professional organizations without involving higher education institutions, especially in relation to the advocate education curriculum. Advocate professional organizations can basically carry out special education, both regarding the code of ethics of the advocate profession and further study of the legal substances developing in the community as well as certain skills so that every advocate has intellectual, moral and professional abilities," he said.
Chairman of the Indonesian Procurement Lawyers’ Association (APPI) Sabela Gayo had requested that professional education be the absolute authority of professional associations. He stated that the provision on professional education as regulated in the National Education System Law and the Higher Education Law has has limited the space for APPI. That is because the a quo articles have deprived APPI of its constitutional rights to develop itself through education and training programs of procurement lawyers in order to improve the quality of life of its members. In addition, he requested that professional associations be declared the only organizations legally entitled and authorized to provide professional education. Therefore, he requested that the articles petitioned for review be declared contrary to the 1945 Constitution and revoked. (Arif Satriantoro/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)
Tuesday, October 16, 2018 | 16:42 WIB 179