Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Anwar Usman leading the judicial review hearing of Law Number 20 of 2003 on National Education System and Law Number 12 of 2012 on Higher Education, Wednesday (14/11) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The material judicial review hearing of Law No. 20/2003 on the National Education System and Law No. 12/2012 on Higher Education was held once again by the Constitutional Court (MK), Wednesday (14/11). Initially the agenda was to hear statements of the experts, but the Petitioner had not submitted them.

"Mr. Sabela Gayo himself authorized substitution to me and stated that [he] could not present any expert," explained Sutanto as the Petitioner\'s attorney. Meanwhile, Government representative Mulyanto said he would submit written statements from experts.

Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Anwar Usman stated that the hearing was the last session. He asked that the Petitioner and the Government submit conclusions to the Constitutional Court.

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 had 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.

Sabela Gayo  reviewed 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 National Education System Law in case No. 45/PUU-XVI/2018.

He also had also requested for review Law No. 12/2012 on Higher Education, that is, 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 in case No. 47/PUU-XVI/2018. (Arif Satriantoro/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)