House Commission III member Supriansa testifying virtually at the judicial review hearing of Law No. 14 of 2005 on Teachers and Lecturers Wednesday (9/8/2021) in the plenary courtroom. Photo by Humas MK/Panji.

---

Wednesday, September 8, 2021 | 15:09 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—Another judicial review hearing of Law No. 14 of 2005 on Teachers and Lecturers was held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Wednesday, September 8, 2021. The petition No. 20/PUU-XIX/2021 had been scheduled to hear the House of Representatives (DPR) and the Government.

House Commission III member Supriansa responded to the Petitioner’s argument that the appointment and confirmation of certain levels of academic positions including professorship falls under the purview of the minister, not the higher education unit.

“The House holds that Law No. 20 of 2003 on the National Education stipulates that the national education system is all components of education that are interrelated in an integrated manner to achieve the national education. Education is carried out by the education unit, which is an educational service group that provides formal, non-formal, and informal education at every level and of any type,” he said on behalf of the House.

Also read: FMIPA Lecturer Challenges Provision on Professorship Appointment

Following Legislation

The provisions on the lecturer in Law No. 12 of 2012 on Higher Education state that the appointment and placement of lecturers by the government, Supriansa said is carried out by the implementing institution based on work agreements according to statutory legislation. The implementing institution is required to provide basic salary and allowances to lecturers and education staff in accordance with the provisions of legislation. The government provides academic position allowances, professional allowances, and honorarium to permanent lecturers in accordance with the provisions of legislation.

The levels of academic positions of permanent lecturers, Supriansa added, are instructor, assistant professor, and professor. Article 72 paragraph (2) of the Higher Education Law states that the levels of academic positions of lecturers are not permanently regulated and determined by the higher education institutions. The law clearly distinguishes the levels of academic positions of permanent and non-permanent lecturers in higher education institutions.

The House then responded to the Petitioner’s argument on the phrase in Article 50 paragraph (4) leading to multiple interpretations because the Minister of Education and Culture then issued a regulation that grants himself the authority, which violates the substance or intention of Article 50 paragraph (4).

“The House maintains that the Petitioner did not mention the provision of Article 48 paragraph (4) of Law No. 14 of 2005 completely, which can cause misunderstanding for those who read the petition. The provision states that the regulation of authority on the levels of academic positions of non-permanent lecturers are not determined by the higher education unit following statutory legislation. So, it is clear that the levels of academic positions of non-permanent lecturers are determined by every higher education unit pursuant to Article 48 paragraph (4) of Law No. 14 of 2005,” Supriansa stressed.

The House emphasized that overall, the Petitioner’s arguments mostly questioned the implementation of norms under the law, so he should not be able to request judicial review in the Constitutional Court with them.

Constitutional Guarantee

Meanwhile, the Ministry of Education and Culture’s Regulatory Expert Staff for Education and Culture Chatarina Muliana Girsang said on behalf of the Government that the Petitioner did not suffer constitutional loss due to the enactment of the a quo norm.

“The Petitioner’s rights are not harmed at all, [or] reduced by the enactment of Article 50 paragraph (4) of the Teacher and Lecturer Law. The 1945 Constitution and the Teacher and Lecturer Law have provided constitutional guarantee for the lecturers’ professional duties and income; for them to be able to obtain promotions and awards, protection; their opportunity to improve their competency, have academic freedom, and freedom of association in organizations,” she said.

The Government stressed that the Petitioner had misinterpreted Article 50 paragraph (4) of the Teacher and Lecturer Law by arguing that under the article, 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 due to the Regulation of the Minister of Education and Culture (Permendikbud) No. 92 of 2014 on the Operational Guidelines for Credit Score Assessment of the Lecturer’s Functional Positions.

The Government maintained that said regulation was issued to exercise the authority based on Article 7 paragraph (1), Article 72 paragraph (6) of the Higher Education Law and Article 70 of the Teacher and Lecturer Law, and the Permendikbud No. 92 of 2014 are not standalone, but to follow up on the Regulation of the Minister of Regulation of the Minister of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform (Permenpan) No. 17 of 2013 on the Lecturer’s Functional Positions and the Credit Scores.

Also read: UI’s FMIPA Lecturer Revises Petition on Professorship Appointment

Sri Mardiyati 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 Petitioner is a FMIPA (Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences) lecturer of the University of Indonesia (UI). Her last office is lektor kepala (associate professor). The UI rector recommended her appointment as professor to the Minister of Education and Culture in 2019, after a long selection process in UI, including academic paper assessment by a professor of mathematics from Institut Teknologi Bandung (ITB). The nomination was denied by the Directorate-General of Higher Education on the ground of the paper not meeting requirements, when UI had already approved of the paper and its validity assessment results.

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 Minister of Education and Culture then issued a regulation that grants himself the authority, which violates the substance or intention of Article 50 paragraph (4). Therefore, in the petitum, the Petitioner requested that the Article 50 paragraph (4) of the a quo law be repealed.

Writer        : Nano Tresna Arfana
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Tiara Agustina
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 9/9/2021 08:46 WIB

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

---