Kurniawan as attorney of the Petitioner reading the principal points of the petition in the judicial review of Law Number 20 of 2003 on the National Education System, Wednesday (19/12) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

Kurniawan as attorney of the Petitioner of the judicial review of Law No. 20/2003 on the National Education System (Sisdiknas Law) conveying several revisions to the petition in the follow-up session, Wednesday (19/12). In the revision hearing, the Petitioner revised several objects of the petition.

“The objects remains, only the phrases are added, Your Honor. Initially it was ‘basic education,’ now it is ‘at least for basic education,’” Kurniawan said before the panel of justices led by Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams.

This means, he added, the phrase “at least for basic education" in casu SMP or its equivalents in the a quo article provides an opportunity for the state to be free of the responsibility or obligation to provide education for children until the age of 18 years. "This has caused the Petitioner to feel that the legal certainty of the state\'s guarantee of the future of children\'s education is lost and children could drop out of school and might not have a clear future," Kurniawan said.

Kurniawan said, no one can ensure that as parents they can continue finance their children\'s education until reaching adulthood. This could be due to economic factors that no one can ascertain or death of parents. 

"Every human being [will face death]. Of course, [all her life] a mother will sacrifice her body, blood, and tears for the sake of the children. However, the Petitioner is worried that if the above conditions occurred when the children are still young or have not finished their education until they were in casu in high school or the equivalent, [his] children could drop out of school because the state is not required to fund those children until graduating from high school or finishing education for children, " Kurniawan explained. 

The Petitioner of the petition registered as No. 97/PUU-XVI/2018 reviews Article 34 paragraph (2) of the National Education System Law along the phrase "compulsory education level." According to the Petitioner, the National Education System Law that reads, "The Government and local governments guarantee the implementation of compulsory education at least for basic education free of cost." Compulsory education funded by the Government is limited to SD or its equivalents and SMP or its equivalents, with the interpretation only referring to the form of basic education in Article 17 paragraph (2) of the National Education System Law, whereas it should refer to at least SMA or its equivalents (Article 169 letter r of the Election Law), so that it is in accordance with the requirements for candidates for directly-elected President/Vice President or leaders of other countries. 

The Petitioner argued that this meant only children of well-to-do families who were able to continue their education to SMA or its equivalents still had the opportunity to realize their dreams to become Presidential/Vice Presidential candidates when they became adults. Meanwhile, children from disadvantaged families must squash their dreams to have equal opportunities before the law and Government to become Presidential/Vice Presidential candidates. That is because the phrase \'basic education\' in Article 34 paragraph (2) of the National Education System Law that is obligatory and must be funded by the state is only interpreted as SMP or its equivalents. Meanwhile, the presidential and vice-presidential candidates are required to have completed at least SMA or equivalent. Therefore, the norm does not guarantee equality before the law and Government for all children.

In addition, the Petitioner argued that because children were not able to act legally, the Petitioner took the initiative to file the case. Therefore, Iqbal added, as a constitutional law expert, who is a component of society who has experience and knowledge specifically on the constitution, the Petitioner had the obligation and responsibility for the implementation of child protection, the right to survival, growth and development, and the fulfillment of right for education, as stated in Article 20 and Article 9 paragraph (1) of the Child Protection Act. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)