Plenary judicial review hearing of the Teachers and Lecturers Law, Monday (11/2) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The Constitutional Court held a follow-up judicial review hearing of Law Number 14 of 2015 on Teachers and Lecturers junctis Law Number 20 of 2003 on the National Education System, Monday (11/2/2019). However, the session was postponed because the Government was not prepared to read their statement. The House of Representatives was scheduled to deliver a statement in the session, but was absent.

Representative of the Ministry of Law and Human Rights Mulyanto said in the hearing presided over by Chief Justice Anwar Usman, “[We] request a delay for the Government’s statement, Your Honors.” In response to the request, Justice Anwar delayed the session until February 25, 2019 at 11.00 WIB to hear the statements from the President and the House of Representatives. 

The petition No. 2/PUU-XVII/2019 was filed by Anisa Rosadi, a teacher of Early Childhood Education (PAUD). She 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 were 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. She believes that Article 1 number 1 of the Teacher and Lecturer Law violates her constitutional rights because it only recognizes 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. The Petitioner argued that her constitutional loss was only related to the Teachers and Lecturers Law, which had eliminated the guarantee of work and decent livelihood for her.

Therefore, through the petitum, the Petitioner requested that the Court declare Article 1 number (1) and Article 2 paragraph (1) of Law Number 14 of 2015 on Teachers and Lecturers contrary to the 1945 Constitution and not legally binding insofar as it is not interpreted as “including Early Childhood Education in non-formal channels." (Arif Satriantoro/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)