ECE educators after the plenary ruling hearing of the judicial review of the Teacher and Lecturer Law, Tuesday (21/5) in the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The entire judicial review petition of Law Number 20 of 2003 on the National Education System was rejected by the Constitutional Court. The Decision No. 2/PUU-XVII/2019 was read out by Chief Justice Anwar Usman before the eight other constitutional justices in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court on Tuesday (21/5/2019).

Petitioner Anisa Rosadi had argued that the articles impugned had violated her constitutional rights because they only recognize formal ECE (early childhood education) 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."

In the legal considerations read out by Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams, the Petitioner argued that the exclusion of non-formal ECE educators in Article 1 number 1 and Article 2 paragraph (1) of the Teacher and Lecturer Law was contrary to the 1945 Constitution, especially Article 27 paragraph (2), Article 28C paragraph (2), Article 28D Paragraph (1), and Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. This causes the Petitioner not to receive a guarantee of decent work and livelihood, unable to develop herself to fulfill needs, and causes the Petitioner to be discriminated against. 

Regarding the Petitioner’s argument, according to the Court, the norm is a general provision that limits the arrangement of who is regulated, so the exclusion of non-formal education in the Teachers and Lecturers Law does not result in citizens in similar profession to the Petitioner to lose their right to work. The Petitioner, in this case, can continue to work, even though she is excluded from the definition mentioned in the norm but is still regulated in other laws and regulations. 

"In addition, the Petitioner’s right to develop herself in order to fulfill her needs is not violated because the exclusion of non-formal ECE educators in the a quo norm does not impede the Petitioner’s right to receive training or opportunities to improve their abilities both practically and academically. Thus, Article 1 number 1 and Article 2 paragraph (1) of the Teacher and Lecturer Law do not prevent the Petitioner from obtaining guarantee to work and decent livelihoods, as well as developing herself in order to fulfill her daily needs," Justice Wahiduddin said. 

In addition, Justice Wahiduddin continued the Petitioner’s argument that Article 1 number 1 and Article 2 paragraph (1) of the Teacher and Lecturer Law do not provide legal certainty to her profession as non-formal PAUD educator, according to the Court, the provision of Article 1 point 1 and Article 2 paragraph (1) of the Teacher and Lecturer Law are articles stipulated in the General Provisions. As stated in Law Number 12 of 2011 on the Establishment of Legislation (Law 12/2011) that General Provisions contain limits on definitions, abbreviations, or acronyms used in regulations, and other general matters applicable in the following articles, among other things, provisions that reflect principles, intentions, and objectives without being formulated separately in articles or chapters. 

"Thus, Article 1 number 1 and Article 2 paragraph (1) of the Teacher and Lecturer Law petitioned by the Petitioner are not regulating norms but instead provide limits on the direction of regulations and who is regulated in the Teacher and Lecturer Law, with the intent to avoid ambiguity or vagueness in the arrangements in subsequent articles, so the a quo articles actually provide legal certainty," Justice Wahiduddin said. (Lulu Anjarsari/Yuniar Widiastuti)