Petitioner’s attorney Gugum Ridho Putra in the judicial review hearing of Law on Teachers and Lecturers Law on the National Education System, Tuesday (29/1) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

The Constitutional Court held the second judicial review hearing of Law Number 14 of 2015 on Teachers and Lecturers junctis Law Number 20 of 2003 on the National Education System, Tuesday (29/1/2019) in the Panel Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. The hearing of case No. 2/PUU-XVII/2019 was petitioned by Anisa Rosadi, a teacher of Early Childhood Education (PAUD).

Petitioner’s attorney Gugum Ridho Putra stated that his client had previously filed a petition on the Teachers and Lecturers Law as well as the National Education System Law. However, in the revision hearing, he emphasized that the Petitioner’s constitutional loss was only related to the Teachers and Lecturers Law, which had eliminated the guarantee of work and decent livelihood for her. The law, Gugum added, contains a discriminatory provision against non-formal ECE education. Non-formal ECE education is given the same responsibilities to fulfill the same academic classification as formal ECE, but was not given equal opportunities for self-development to take such responsibilities. Therefore, it is proof that Article 1 number 1 and Article 2 paragraph (1) of the Teachers and Lecturers Law are contrary to Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution.

“The provision remains constitutional if it [makes] non-formal education part of the definition of teacher,” Gugum said before the panel of justices led by Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra, who was accompanied by Constitutional Justices Wahiduddin Adams and Manahan M.P. Sitompul.

Therefore, the Petitioner requested that Article 1 number (1) and Article 2 paragraph (1) of Law Number 14 of 2015 on Teachers and Lecturers be declared contrary to the 1945 Constitution and not have a legally binding legal force insofar as it is not interpreted “including Early Childhood Education in non-formal channels."  

In her petition, the Petitioner argued 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 her, Article 1 number (1) and Article 2 paragraph (1) of the Teachers and Lecturers Law violates her constitutional rights because it recognized only educators in formal ECE as teachers, while educators in non-formal ECE are not recognized legally as teachers. 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. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)