---

Petitioner Reza Aldo Agusta and attorney Damian Agata Yuvens after the judicial review hearing of Article 4 paragraph (2) letter d of Law Number 7 of 2014 on Trade. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—Reza Aldo Agusta, semester 4 student of Unika Atmajaya Yogyakarta requested the judicial review of provision on traded services as stipulated in Article 4 paragraph (2) letter d of Law Number 7 of 2014 on Trade. The preliminary hearing of case No. 16/PUU-XVII/2019 was held by the Constitutional Court on Tuesday (26/2/2019) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Aldo argued that the law saw education merely as a commodity. Article 4 paragraph (2) letter d of the Trade Law reads, “In addition to the scope of the arrangements referred to in paragraph (1), also regulated tradable services including: d. Educational services.”

Attorney Damian Agata Yuvens said that the Petitioner had felt that his constitutional rights had been violated by the increase of education costs. He said that when educational services were seen as commodity, it would lead to the increase of education costs. In addition, he argued that the objective of education would change from educating to profit-making. Although it had not happened, the Petitioner argued potential loss due to the enactment of the law.

“Education that is regarded as a commodity in the a quo law potentially shifts the relationship between education providers and students to one between [producers and consumers],” said Damian in the session presided over by Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo.

Damian pointed out that the purpose of education in Indonesia was to educate the nation, as stated in the fourth paragraph of the Preamble of the 1945 Constitution. According to him, the article in the Trade Law has the potential to exempt the state from the responsibility to prioritize education based on the 1945 Constitution. “This conflict does not need to occur if educational services are not included in the a quo law or at least given a definition in accordance with the philosophy of education in Indonesia,” he stressed.

Based on that reason, in the petitum the Petitioner requested that the Court declare Article 4 paragraph (2) letter d contrary to the 1945 Constitution and not legally binding.

Petition Argument

Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat recommended that the Petitioner revise the background of his petition. He advised the Petitioner to elaborate on educational services that did not aim at making profits or making education a commodity as the Petitioner was concerned about.

“[Elaborate] educational services established for commodity or to be traded, if the educational services is managed by a [company]. But there are [educational services] managed by foundations, for example Al Azhar University or Muhammadiyah. [They] are not oriented toward profits. Your concern can be connected to this,” he said.

Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih assessed that the loss suffered by the Petitioner was not obvious and was only an assumption. She asked the Petitioner to further elaborate on his constitutional loss due to the enactment of the article impugned.

She also asked the Petitioner to explain any potential loss although it hadn’t occurred yet, for example, whether tuition today had increased. She also requested that the Petitioner explained the difference between educational services and right to education. “Is it related to the enactment of the norm? Is there any correlation to the increasing tuition? Is your tuition the same now and before the Trade Law was passed?” she asked.

Before concluding the hearing, Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo reminded the Petitioner to submit the revised petition by Monday, March 11, 2019 at 10.00 a.m. to the Registrar Office. (Arif Satriantoro/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---