Panel revision hearing of the judicial review of Higher Education Law, Thursday (9/5) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court held the second hearing of Article 65 paragraph (3) letter b of Law No. 12 of 2012 on Higher Education (Dikti) along the word “independent” on Thursday (9/5/2019). The hearing for case No. 31/PUU-XVII/2019 was to listen to the revision of the petition.

Zico Leonard Djagardo Simanjuntak as Petitioner stated that he had revised the legal standing according to the advice of the constitutional justices. He stands for neutrality within campus and argued that the political tendency within the board of trustees (MWA) limited the students’ freedom to criticize, while students’ basic character is critical, objective thinking.

“I was even summoned by one of the professors for filing this petition. The professor is a member of the senate,” Zico stressed. The regulation, he said, does not provide fair legal protection and certainty as it does not prohibit political intervention within campus.

In the hearing, Zico stated that another petitioner had joined the case—Gadjah Mada (UGM) student by the name of Ikhsan Prasetya Fitriansyah. Ikhsan stated that the Dikti Law does not prohibit politics within campus. “While in fact, neutrality within campus is a fundamental principle that has to be realized,” he stressed in case No. 31/PUU-XVII/2019.

Ikhsan added that the Law must regulate the issue by prohibiting politics  so that the board of trustees do not appoint political figures, in order to provide legal certainty to citizens.

The Petitioner argues that his constitutional rights have been violated by the enactment of Article 65 paragraph (3) letter b of the Higher Education Law, especially along the word "independent" and Article 68, especially along the phrase "further provisions." Article 65 paragraph (3) letter b of the Higher Education Law reads, "The PTN legal entity as referred to in paragraph (1) has: a. ... b. independent governance and decision-making." Article 68 of the Law reads, "Further provisions on the management of Higher Education as referred to in Article 64 and Article 65 are regulated in a Government Regulation."

Zico argues that the Higher Education Law regulates the implementation of autonomy in state universities, one of which is characterized by independent governance and decision-making. This is also stated in Article 65 paragraph (3) letter b of the Law. However, two people namely Erick Thohir and Saleh Hussin, [who] have affiliations with certain political parties and politicians, were elected members of the University of Indonesia (UI) board of trustees (MWA). He assumes that their election in the university’s board of trustees shows politicians’ interference in educational institutions, which should not be in favor of any political interests.

Therefore, in his petitum, the Petitioner requests that the Court declare article 65 paragraph (3) letter b of the Higher Education Law constitutional as long as the word "independent" is interpreted as "managers and decision makers have no political affiliations for the previous year, either as members of political party or campaign team members of any politician.” The Petitioner also requested [that the Court] declare Article 68 of the Higher Education Law to remain constitutional as long as the phrase ‘further provisions’ is interpreted as ‘provisions contrary to law and legal actions resulting from those provisions is legally null and void, especially in the Management and Decision Making in Higher Education Legal Entity. (Arif Satriantoro/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)