House’s Commision III member Anwar Rachman giving statement in the judicial review hearing of Article 4 paragraph (2) letter d of Law No. 7 of 2014 on Trade, Monday (8/4) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—House’s Commision III member Anwar Rachman stated that the norm regulating education as commodity is constitutional, during the judicial review hearing of Article 4 paragraph (2) letter d of Law No. 7 of 2014 on Trade, Monday (8/4/2019) ) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. “The Petitioner challenges the implementation of the norm, not its constitutionality,” he said.

The judicial review petition of the Trade Law was filed by Reza Aldo Agusta, a semester 4 student of Unika Atmajaya Yogyakarta. He challenged Article 4 paragraph (2) letter d of the Trade Law that reads, “In addition to the scope of the arrangements referred to in paragraph (1), also regulated tradable services including: d. Educational services.” He claimed constitutional harm due to the norm, which allows the increase of education costs. When educational services are seen as commodity, it leads to the increase of education costs, as the objective of education shifts from educating to profit-making. According to the Petitioner, the purpose of education in Indonesia was to educate the nation, as stated in the fourth paragraph of the Preamble of the 1945 Constitution.

Anwar said that the nature of education in Indonesia remains not profit-oriented. For example, if a private corporation wants to establish an educational institution, it will be a non-profit foundation. He further stated that the article does indeed state education as a commodity, but the regulation does not stand alone and still refers to Law No. 20 of 2003 on the National Education System (Sisdiknas). "So, I emphasize, there is no conflict between the two provisions. Both are complementary," he said firmly. Anwar said public participation, or establishing a private education institution, does not mean the Government is free from responsibility in education, but it is complementary with education organized by the Government.

Different Meaning

Expert for the Petitioner Aan Eko Widiarto commented on the meaning of two words, “services” and “education.” He believes the two have conflicting meanings. "Service aims to receive return or compensation, while education aims to develop potentials so as to have the power of spirituality, religion, self-control, and so on, on a non-profit basis," he said. The method, he said, is for services to transfer rights to services while education makes conscious and planned efforts to create a learning atmosphere and process so that students actively develop their potentials.

"There are distortions because the natures of services and education are different. The word “services” is oriented towards making profits without any charge of values other than economic, while the word “education” moves towards spiritual, religious, self-control, personality values, and so on for society, nation, and state by not placing profits as the sole purpose," he said.

Another expert for Petitioner, Hafid Abbas, stressed the important role the state plays in education. The state must play an active role because education is the right of every citizen. He also asked that provisions regulating education as a commodity be revoked. ILO and UNESCO stressed that education is not a commodity to be traded. This was decided at a hearing in October 2018 at the UN Building in Geneva. "Education is a fundamental human right in point 8. This was declared on an International Teacher\'s Day," he said. From here on out, said Abbas, the Government has a reason to change the regulation because there are references in the international context. (Arif Satriantoro/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)