Plenary ruling hearing of the judicial review of the National Education System Law, Wednesday (27/2) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—Case No. 97/PUU-XVI/2018 filed by housewives Happy Hayati Helmi and Rayna Zafira were rejected by the Constitutional Court in the ruling hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 20/2003 on the National Education System on Wednesday afternoon (27/2/2019). “The verdict rejects the Petitioners’ petition for the whole,” said plenary chairman Anwar Usman in the presence of the other constitutional justices.

The Petitioner reviewed Article 34 paragraph (2) of the National Education System Law along the phrase "compulsory education level." The Petitioner had the obligation and responsibility for the implementation of child protection, the right to survival, growth and development, and the fulfillment of right for education, as stated in Article 20 and Article 9 paragraph (1) of the Child Protection Law. 

Legal Standing of a Young Child 

The legal consideration of the Court states that the subject of the a quo petition is related to the constitutional right to education as stipulated in Article 31 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. According to the positive law that currently applies in Indonesia in casu the Civil Code, Article 2 of the Civil Code regulates on a child, “The child in the womb of a woman is deemed to have already been born should his interest so requires. In the event that the child is stillborn, he is deemed to have never existed.”

In case of a minor, at two years of age, although the age limit is different across regulations, the issue is not on the age but on the child’s capacity to act in the eyes of the law. Therefore, according to the Court, the Petitioners acting on behalf of their children is legal. In other words, the Petitioners have persona standi in judicio to represent their children’s interests, including that of an unborn child. This also applies to the legal father as long as his rights as parent or legal guardian are not revoked by law.

“However, in the context of the a quo petition, does it apply to the effort to defend constitutional rights that attach to a citizen? In this case, the Court believes it applies in fighting for or defending the constitutional rights of a child. If such rationale were not accepted, the parent of a child would not have legal standing in representing an underage child, so in the a quo case there would not be any legal party to represent the child’s interest. The legal consequence in the a quo case in case of violation of a child’s constitutional rights is that there would be no party legally legitimate to act for and on behalf of the child in question,” said Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams reading out the Court’s considerations.

In other words, he added, if such rationale were to be followed, it would mean that the Court allow violation to a child’s constitutional rights merely because there was no party whose legal standing could be accepted to represent the child in question. Such a rationale is contrary to the constitutional spirit to guarantee the constitutional rights of every citizen.

“Based on all the above legal considerations, the Court is of the opinion that the Petitioners have the legal standing to act as Petitioners in the a quo petition. Considering that based on all the above considerations, the Petitioners have the legal standing to act as Petitioners in the a quo petition. However, in the subject of the petition, the Petitioners’ argument has no legal ground in its entirety,” Justice Wahiduddin asserted. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)