---

Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo reading out the Court’s legal consideration of Decision No. 94/PUU-XVIII/2020, Thursday (14/1/2021) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Teguh.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The judicial review of petition Law No. 14 of 2005 on Teachers and Lecturers, filed by Ahmad Amin, a civil servant (PNS) from Pati, was dismissed by the Constitutional Court (MK). “[The Court] adjudicated, declares the Petitioner’s petition inadmissible,” said Chief Justice Anwar Usman alongside the other eight constitutional justices at the online hearing of Decision No. 94/PUU-XVIII/2020 on Thursday, January 14, 2021 in the Plenary courtroom.

After carefully reviewing the legal standing, the Court found that the Petitioner didn’t specifically elaborate on the causality between the enactment of the articles petitioned and the touchstones. The Petitioner claimed to have been harmed because he didn’t receive any increase in salary because the budget was used for professional allowance and special allowances for teachers and lecturers as well as honorarium for professors. The Petitioner didn’t explain the impairment to his constitutional rights due to the enactment of the norms. He instead argued about the legal uncertainty of the authorities of high state institutions that are authorized to determine the budget.

On one hand, in the petitum the Petitioner requested that the a quo norms be declared conditionally constitutional. On the other hand, he requested that they be declared unconstitutional. In addition, the Petitioner intended that the phrases “equal to 1 (one) time the basic salary” and “equal to 2 (two) times the basic salary” be reinterpreted, so should have proposed a new interpretation in order for the norms to be constitutional following his reasoning. However, he didn’t do so in the posita. Instead, he intended that the president not be obligated to fulfill obligations as referred to in Article 16 paragraph (2), Article 18 paragraph (2), Article 53 paragraph (2), Article 55 paragraph (2), and Article 56 paragraph (1) of Law No. 14 of 2005.

“Based on the aforementioned legal consideration, the Court opined that the Petitioner’s petition is obscure because it did not meet the formal requirements for a petition as referred to in Article 31 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Law and Article 5 paragraph (1) of [the Constitutional Court’s Regulation] No. 6 of 2005,” said Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo reading out the decision.

Also read:

Civil Servant Questions Provision on Salaries and Allowances of Teachers and Lecturers

Petition on Teacher and Lecturer Law Revised

The Petitioner is Ahmad Amin, a civil servant (PNS) at the Pati Regency Education Office (Central Java). He challenges Article 16 paragraph (2), Article 18 paragraph (2), Article 53 paragraph (2), Article 55 paragraph (2), and Article 56 paragraph (1) of the Teacher and Lecturer Law against 19 articles in the 1945 Constitution: Article 1 paragraph (3); Article 4 paragraph (1); Article 5 paragraph (2); Article 18 paragraphs (2) and (5); Article 20 paragraphs (1), (2), and (4); Article 20A paragraph (1), Article 22A; Article 22D paragraphs (1) and (2); Article 23 paragraphs (1) and (2); Article 23C; Article 27 paragraph (1); Article 28D paragraphs (1) and (2); and Article 28H paragraph (4).

He revealed that he currently receives a basic salary based on the Government Regulation No. 7 of 1977 on the Regulation for Civil Servants’ Salaries as amended by the Government Regulation No. 15 of 2019 on the Eighteenth Amendment to the Government Regulation No. 7 of 1977 on the Regulation for Civil Servants’ Salaries, which, directly or indirectly, is within the authority of the executive branch. Therefore, he believes that he has the right to challenge the a quo law materially as well as formally, with regards to its formation and the role of the executive and legislative branches in implementing the 1945 Constitution, the authority of the legislative branch as represented by the Regional Representatives Council (DPD) and the House of Representatives (DPR), and the authority of the executive branch (president).

He believes according to logical reasoning, the enactment of the a quo provision, which stipulates basic salary as belonging to the professional allowance budget and state expenditure for teachers and lecturers, has violated his constitutional rights to equality before the law and in government as regulated in Article 27 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. In addition, the a quo provision, which states that the basic salary of teachers appointed by the education unit administered by the Government according to logical reasoning has violated the Petitioner’s constitutional rights as stipulated in Article 28D Paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. 

Writer: Nano Tresna Arfana
Editor: Nur R.
PR: Annisa Lestari
Translator: Yuniar Widiastuti (Editor: Indah Apriyanti)

Translation uploaded on 01/15/2021 17:11 WIB

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case where any differences occur between the English and the Indonesian version, the Indonesian version will prevail.

---