Community law and development studies lecturer of the University of Indonesia Heru Susetyo as expert for Petitioner in the judicial review of the Teacher-Lecturer Law and the National Education System Law, Thursday (14/3) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The Constitutional Court held the judicial review of Law Number 14 of 2005 on Teachers and Lecturers and Law Number 20 of 2003 on the National Education System on Thursday (14/3/2019). The hearing of case No. 2/PUU-XVII/2019 was to hear the statements from experts for the Petitioner and the Government.

Community law and development studies lecturer of the University of Indonesia Heru Susetyo as expert for Petitioner explained that Article 1 number 1 and Article 2 paragraph (1) of the Teacher and Lecturer Law junctis Article 1 number 14, Article 26 paragraph (3), Article 28 paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4), and Article 39 paragraph (2) of the National Education System Law have led to access disparity and discrimination against teachers of early children education (ECE).

“It should be the same between formal and informal ECE teachers. This is a denial of teacher’s status, the exclusion of informal ECE teachers from teachers. Even though all citizens are equal before the law,” Heru said before the constitutional justices led by Chief Justice Anwar Usman.

Meanwhile, expert for the Government Nur Ainy Fardana said that status of ECE teachers are categorized based on ECE services in Indonesia. This means that it depends on the institution. “In Indonesia, there are informal and non-formal [institutions], so not all teachers can be regarded as such. Formal and informal channels can complement each other,” she said.

In the previous hearing, the Petitioner, ECE teacher Anisa Rosadi, had argued that the articles impugned had violated her constitutional rights because they only recognize formal ECE 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. 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." 

Before concluding the hearing, Justice Anwar informed that the next session was scheduled for Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 11.00 a.m. to hear the statement of witness for the Petitioner. (Lulu Anjarsari/Yuniar Widiastuti)