Chief Constitutional Justice Anwar Usman reading out the ruling of the judicial review of Article 4 paragraph (2) letter d of Law Number 7 of 2014 on Trade. Photo by Humas MK/Hermanto.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) could not accept the judicial review petition of Article 4 paragraph (2) letter d of Law Number 7 of 2014 on Trade. The Decision No. 16/PUU-XVII/2019 was read out in the ruling pronouncement hearing on Thursday (28/11/2019) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court.

The petition was filed by Reza Aldo Agusta, a semester 4 student of Unika Atmajaya, who argued that the stipulation of education as a commodity in Article 4 paragraph (2) letter d of the Trade Law violated his constitutional right to education, in line with the 1945 Constitution.

Reading out the Constitutional Court’s legal consideration, Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih stated that the Court did not find constitutional impairment of high increase in education costs as argued the Petitioner as a result of the enactment of the a quo article, which made all forms of educational services tradable commodities to seek profits.

Justice Enny added that in his statement the Petitioner said the increase of tuition had no direct effect on the Petitioner because the university provides a full scholarship for him to complete his studies. "Therefore, the Court did not find any impairment of the Petitioner\'s constitutional rights, both actual and potential. Therefore, the Petitioner does not have a legal standing to act as the Petitioner in the a quo petition," she said when reading the Court\'s legal considerations before the session led by Chief Justice Anwar Usman.

State Provides Protection

Justice Enny added that, referring to the provision of the norm that make education services tradable services, the Court was of the opinion that this does not necessarily make education private goods because it does not mean that the Government can escape its responsibilities. As a tradable service education must be subject to national education regulations.

"As is the case of trade of other goods or services, the state can make legal protection with regulatory instruments in education that provides guidelines for organizing education," Justice Enny said.

Regarding the Petitioner’s argument that Article 4 paragraph (2) letter d of the Trade Law is dualism in the education system in Indonesia that led to conflict between the state’s responsibility in education and trade, the Court was of the opinion that trade regulations relating to the norm do not stand alone, but are closely related to other legislations such as the National Education System Law. "Even though education services can be traded, education is not subject to the trade [regulations] because it remains in the national education system in the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia," Justice Enny explained. (Sri Pujianti/LA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti