Expert Staff on Regulation of the Ministry of Education and Culture Chatarina M. Girsang representing the Government delivering a statement in the judicial review of Law Number 14 of 2005 on Teachers and Lecturers in conjunction with Law Number 20 of 2003 on the National Education System, Monday (25/2). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.
JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Teacher and Lecturer Law is not discriminatory on the definition of teacher in formal and non-formal education. This was conveyed by Expert Staff on Regulation of the Ministry of Education and Culture Chatarina M. Girsang in the judicial review of Law Number 14 of 2005 on Teachers and Lecturers in conjunction with Law Number 20 of 2003 on the National Education System, Monday (25/2/2019).
Chatarina stressed the Government’s refutation of the Petitioner’s argument about non-formal ECE teachers not categorized as teachers. “The national education system has regulated and categorized formal, non-formal, and informal education. Each complete and enrich the others. This means that each Indonesian citizen can attend education according to their choice, whether formal, non-formal, or informal,” she said.
As a consequence of the distribution, Chatarina added, in the national education system the designation must be related to the qualifications of the educators. Therefore, formal and non-formal ECE must have consequences on the educator\'s qualification and status. However, these consequences are not discriminatory and also do not create barriers to rights, work, and decent livelihoods.
She said that as a consequence to the different categories (formal, non-formal, and informal), the designations and qualifications for the educators were also different juridically.
The differing qualifications and competencies, she added, resulted in the differing rights and obligations for the educators. The requirement of the same qualification and competence for formal and non-formal ECE teachers would be a violation of regulations. It should not be a basis for a demand for equal treatment and an argument of constitutional right violation.
"No mention of non-formal ECE educators as teachers does not eliminate, reduce, or hinder the right to obtain decent work and livelihood for humanity as mandated in Article 27 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. The Petitioner will definitely receive her rights as an educator in non-formal ECE in accordance with the provisions of Article 40 of the National Education System Law," she said.
Therefore, Chatarina stressed that the Government considered the Petitioner\'s claim that the Teacher and Lecturer Law had eliminated guarantees of employment and decent livelihoods for informal ECE educators inaccurate. Her status as non-formal ECE educator does not necessarily result in her losing the opportunity to develop competence and guarantee to welfare, so there is no violation of her constitutional rights as referred to in Article 27 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution.
Job Description of Teacher
Chatarina also explained that the teacher profession is only eligible for someone who has the academic qualification, competency, and educator certification in accordance with the requirements for each level and type of education. This is consistently defined in Law No. 14 of 2005 on Teachers and Lecturers.
Chatarina\'s statement refuted the Petitioner\'s argument that the designation of teacher for equivalent formal and non-formal ECE and the designation of ECE educators as teachers in accordance with laws and regulations. She also stressed that in the Elucidation to the Law on Teachers and Lecturers, the teacher was said to be a professional position.
“This explanation has been consistent and accurate from the start because the intention of the legislators from the beginning was only to regulate teachers and lecturers in educational units that provided education in the formal education at every level and type, whether organized by the Government, Regional Government, or society,” said Chatarina in the session presided over by Chief Justice Anwar Usman.
Chatarina added that this could not be separated from the main objective of the Teacher and Lecturer Law, namely to encourage professionalism in teachers and lecturers in the implementation of quality formal education. Professional, she said, is interpreted in the law as the work or activities carried out by someone that becomes a source of livelihood, which requires expertise, skills, or qualification that meet certain quality standards or norms, and requires professional education.
"So [not being designated as] a teacher in formal ECE is a juridical constitution that cannot be equated with social reality or lay opinion. [Being designated as] a teacher by the community as a social reality does not necessarily cause one to act, play a role, and act as a teacher in the formal education," she explained in response to case Number 2/PUU-XVII/2019.
Causing Problems
In addition, Chatarina emphasized that if the Constitutional Court granted the request, all teachers in non-formal education must enter the juridical concept. The impact is that all teachers in non-formal education must receive certification, benefits, and facilities.
"If we follow the Petitioner\'s argument, the state\'s obligation in education is potentially disrupted or cannot be fulfilled due to state budget issues. Then the state\'s obligation in the education sector to regulate a national education system potentially creates excessive polemic in relation to its implications with the burden of state budget," she explained.
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."
The next session was scheduled for Monday, March 4, 2019 at 11.00 WIB to hear the statement of expert for the Petitioner. (Arif Satriantoro/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)
Monday, February 25, 2019 | 17:46 WIB 143