---

Petitioner’s attorney Gugum Ridho Putra reading the points of the petition in the preliminary judicial review hearing of Law Number 14 of 2015 on Teachers and Lecturers junctis Number 20 of 2003 on the National Education System, Tuesday (15/1) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

The Constitutional Court held the preliminary judicial review hearing of Law Number 14 of 2015 on Teachers and Lecturers junctis Number 20 of 2003 on the National Education System, Tuesday (15/1) in the Panel Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. The hearing of case No. 2/PUU-XVII/2019 was presided over by Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra in the presence of Constitutional Justices Wahiduddin Adams and Manahan M.P. Sitompul.

Anisa Rosadi, a teacher of Early Childhood Education (PAUD) based on the Decree of Appointment of Educators of BKB PAUD Al-Ihsan Number 05/SK-PAI/04/07 dated April 5, 2007, exactly 2 years after the Teacher and Lecturer Law was passd into law on December 30, 2005. Through Gugum Ridho Putra as attorney, she conveyed that Article 1 number 14; Article 26 paragraph (3); Article 28 paragraphs (1), (3), and (4); and Article 39 paragraph (2) of the National Education System Law contrary to Article 27 paragraphs (1) and (2); Article 28D paragraphs (1) and (2); Article 28C paragraph (1); and Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. 

According to the Petitioner, Article 1 number 1 of the Teacher and Lecturer Law that reads, "Teachers are professional educators with the main duties of educating, teaching, guiding, directing, training, assessing, and evaluating students in early childhood education in formal education, basic education, and secondary education," and Article 2 paragraph (1) that reads, "Teachers have a position as professionals in the basic education, secondary education, and early childhood education in formal education, and are appointed in accordance with laws and regulations" are detrimental to the constitutional rights of the Petitioner. 

"Due to the enactment of the two a quo articles, those who are recognized as teachers are only educators in formal PAUD, while educators in non-formal PAUD are not recognized legally as teachers," explained Gugum alongside the Petitioner. 

As a result, the Petitioner does not have a guarantee to develop competencies such as teacher certification and welfare benefits such as basic salary, functional allowances, and other special benefits. Therefore, the Petitioner requested that Article 1 number (1) and Article 2 paragraph (1) of the a quo law be declared contrary to the 1945 Constitution and not have a legally binding legal force insofar as it is not interpreted to include "early childhood educators in non-formal channels." 

Legal Treatment

Responding to this petition, Justice Manahan requested that the Petitioner elaborate on the constitutional impairment that had not been clearly described regarding the norms or the application of administrative regulations especially for non-formal PAUD educators that was problematic. In addition, he also requested that the Petitioner describe what legal treatment was not obtained by the Petitioner who was a non-formal PAUD educator. "Then, will it relate to the constitutional [rights]? So, describe everything. Not only the material loss experienced by the Petitioner. The main constitutional impairment [should be] described in depth," he explained. 

Meanwhile, Justice Saldi stressed on the Petitioner\'s petition that challenged the Teacher and Lecturer Law as well as the National Education System Law, but the juridical reasons the Petitioner submitted only focused on the Teacher and Lecturer Law. "Hopefully there will be elaboration of the two laws being reviewed. It is necessary to add a description of the reasons for the petition," he said. 

Before ending the session, Justice Saldi reminded the Petitioner to submit the revised petition no later than Monday, January 28, 2019 at 10.00 a.m. to the Registrar\'s Office of the Constitutional Court. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)

 

---