The attorney of the Petitioner of case No. 20/PUU-XIX/2021 at a preliminary hearing on Wednesday (16/6/2021). Photo by Humas MK/Panji.
Wednesday, June 16, 2021 | 16:04 WIB
JAKARTA, Public Relations—The preliminary hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 14 of 2005 on Teachers and Lecturers was held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Wednesday, June 16, 2021. The petition No. 20/PUU-XIX/2021 was filed by Sri Mardiyati, a FMIPA (Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences) lecturer of the University of Indonesia (UI).
The Petitioner challenges Article 50 paragraph (4) of the Teacher and Lecturer Law, which reads, “Further provisions regarding the selection as referred to in paragraph (2) and the appointment and confirmation of certain levels of academic positions as referred to in paragraph (3) shall be determined by each higher education unit in accordance with statutory regulations.”
The rector of UI in 2019 sent a recommendation to the Minister of Education and Culture to appoint the Petitioner as a professor. Her nomination was prompted by a long process internally, including an assessment of her paper(s) by a professor of mathematics from Institut Teknologi Bandung (ITB).
“However, the recommendation was rejected by [the Minister], specifically the Directorate General of Higher Education on the ground that her paper(s) didn’t meet requirements, when UI has approved of [them] and have approved the validation of the Petitioner’s paper(s),” said one of the Petitioner’s attorneys, S. F. Marbun.
The Petitioner asserts that under Article 50 paragraph (4) of the a quo law, the appointment and confirmation of certain levels of academic positions, including a professorship, is the authority of the higher education unit or the university or the rector. However, due to the minister-assigned 2019 Operational Guidelines for Credit Score Assessment, such an authority falls on the Directorate General of Higher Education.
The Petitioner believes that is because Article 50 paragraph (4) of the a quo law mentions the phrase that the appointment and confirmation of professors is carried out by each unit following statutory regulations.
“The phrase is multi-interpretive because the Ministry of Education and Culture then made a regulation that grants itself the authority, which violates the substance or intention of Article 50 paragraph (4),” Marbun said before the panel led by Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat.
The Petitioner believes that in practice Article 50 paragraph (4) of the a quo law is interpreted by Article 70 to mean that the appointment and confirmation of certain levels of academic positions, including a professorship, is under the minister and not the higher education unit. Therefore, the Petitioner requested that the Court declare Article 50 paragraph (4) of the Teacher and Lecturer Law unconstitutional and not legally binding insofar as not interpreted that “the confirmation of certain levels of academic positions falls under the purview of the rector as the head of the higher education unit, without the minister’s intervention.” She also requested that the norm be declared conditionally unconstitutional in UI specifically, insofar as not interpreted as “the appointment and confirmation of certain levels of academic positions as referred to in paragraph (3) is determined by each of the higher education unit pursuant to statutory regulations” not complying with the Government Regulation No. 68 of 2013 on the Statute of Universitas Indonesia.
Justices’ Advice
Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra observed the format of the petition. “Please draft the petition following the procedural law of the Constitutional Court. The petition’s subject matter covers the Petitioner’s profile, the Court’s authority, and [the Petitioner’s] legal standing. In the legal standing part, the Petitioner explains their constitutional rights due to the enactment of the article in contention. Then, the reason to file the petition must explain that the enactment of the law violates the 1945 Constitution. Last, explain what the Petitioner requests,” he explained.
He also questioned the petition, which focuses on a concrete case the Petitioner was involved in. It seemed as if the Petitioner wanted Article 50 paragraph (4) of the Teacher and Lecturer Law be reviewed against the Regulation of the Minister of Education and Culture. However, the Court’s authority concerns the judicial review of laws against the Constitution, not on concrete cases.
Next, Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih highlighted the nature of the Petitioner’s issue. “Is it a matter of constitutionality or not? Because the Constitutional Court settles [cases of] constitutionality, not implementation, of a provision far under the law, no less,” she said.
Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat advised the Petitioner and her attorneys to revise the petition following the Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK) No. 2 of 2021 on the Procedure for Judicial Review of Laws. “That is the latest PMK, available on the Court’s website. Article 10 paragraph (2) of [the PMK] regulates the format of judicial review petitions. That must be used as guidelines,” he said,
The Petitioner was given time to revise the petition until Tuesday, June 29, 2021.
Writer : Nano Tresna Arfana
Editor : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR : Annisa Lestari
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Translation uploaded on 6/17/2021 13:07 WIB
Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian version, the Indonesian version will prevail.
Wednesday, June 16, 2021 | 16:04 WIB 399