Ruling hearing on the judicial review hearing of Law No. 14 of 2005 on Teachers and Lecturers, Tuesday (3/29/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.
Tuesday, March 29, 2022 | 14:54 WIB
JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) rejected the petition on the filling of vacancies in Article 50 paragraph (4) of Law No. 14 of 2005 on Teachers and Lecturers. The Decision No. 20/PUU-XIX/2021 was read out on Tuesday, March 29, 2022 in the plenary courtroom. The petition was filed by Sri Mardiyati, a FMIPA (Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences) lecturer of the University of Indonesia (UI).
“[The Court] rejects the Petitioner’s petition in its entirety,” said Chief Justice Anwar Usman at the ruling hearing alongside the other eight constitutional justices.
Reading out the legal considerations, Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih said that from the facts during the proceedings, the Court found that the failure to obtain professorship recommendation was a problem in the implementation of various regulations and policies, not a constitutionality issue.
The Court asserted in its legal considerations that a university’s professorship endorsement had been made 27 days before the Petitioner’s retirement. The Petitioner was born on October 25, 1954, so her retirement date should have been November 1, 2019. Meanwhile, Regulation of the Head of the National Civil Service Agency No. 3 of 2020 on Technical Instructions for Dismissing Civil Servants stipulates that the retirement date shall be notified 15 months before retirement. Furthermore, the process of proposing academic positions is carried out according to the service level agreement (SLA) norms following the existing standard operating procedure. The assessment for an associate professor takes place for a maximum of 45 working days at the Directorate-General of Higher Education, Research, and Technology.
Meanwhile, the for a professor takes place for 55 working days since the recommendation is received until the credit score is determined. Referring to the Circular Letter of the Directorate-General of Science, Technology, and Higher Education of the Ministry of Research, Technology, and Higher Education No. 1142/D1/KP/2016 dated May 9, 2016, the recommendation of academic promotion shall be made at least 2 years before retirement date. The Circular Letter of the Directorate-General of Higher Education of the Ministry of Education and Culture No. 166/E.E4/K8/2020 dated February 28, 2020 stipulates that the recommendation for academic promotion of lecturer to professor shall be made 1 year before the retirement date at the most. However, it was discovered during the proceedings that the recommendation had been made 27 days before the Petitioner’s retirement date, on October 4, 2019.
“The recommendation was still assessed on October 22, 2019; February 25, 2020; and February 26-27, 2020. It didn’t result in recommendation for the Petitioner to be endorsed as a professor. Without judging the Petitioner’s concrete case, based on those facts, the failure to obtain a recommendation of academic promotion was an issue of the implementation of various regulations and policies, not a constitutionality issue,” Justice Enny explained.
Also read:
FMIPA Lecturer Challenges Provision on Professorship Appointment
UI’s FMIPA Lecturer Revises Petition on Professorship Appointment
House and Govt Deem Provision on Professor Appointment Constitutional
Regardless, Justice Enny added, the Court believed that the Regulation of the Ministry of Education and Culture No. 92 of 2014 and PO PAK 2014, and now PO PAK 2019 are juridical instrument to implement Article 50 paragraph (4) of Law No. 14 of 2005 and Article 72 paragraph (6) of Law No. 12 of 2012 operationally in order to ensure the standards of assessment and its procedure so that the quality of lecturers as an academic profession remains accountable.
“In this case, the Court needs to assert that although there is delegation and authority in the ministerial regulation, it is not justified to reduce and add to the substance of the law for which the formation of said ministerial regulation was based on,” she said.
Also read:
Expert’s Statement Late, Court Delays Hearing on Teacher-Lecturer Law
Yusril Ihza Mahendra: National Standard for Academic Positions Nonexistent
Lecturer Endorsement Mechanism
In the decision, the Court also considered that the requirements and mechanism for the endorsement of permanent and temporary lecturers including honorary professors remained different as those for the latter are based on contract agreement by the university, such as part-time. The Court believed endorsement as an honorary professor did not require certain credit scores but tacit knowledge based on one’s experience and thinking that is not knowledge yet but has the potential to become explicit knowledge at the university and to benefit the public. However, for permanent lecturers, explicit knowledge is an important aspect that shows their academic achievement to be realized into papers, research reports, journal papers, proceedings, books, and other monumental works.
Justice Enny added that intensity of teaching and community service are important considerations. Meanwhile, the Court believed that works published in reputed international journals do not require any more review by the university and/or ministry as long as the journals are from a regularly-updated list by the ministry. It would be a requirement to assess meticulously and be translated into credit points (KUM).
“Furthermore, through Law No. 12 of 2012 it is stressed that the retirement age limit of permanent lecturers who are academic professors is 70 years and they [deserve] state recognition in the form of honorary incentive aside from professional incentive, which is paid for by the state budget (APBN),” she explained.
Also read:
Two Experts for Govt Explain Professor’s Appointment
Two Witnesses Testify for President at Hearing for Teacher-Lecturer Law
UI Presents Witness at Hearing for Teacher-Lecturer Law
As 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 said article. The Petitioner believes that, in practice, it 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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ya2Vfcr6gbs
Writer : Utami Argawati
Editor : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR : Tiara Agustina
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Translation uploaded on 4/4/2022 08:42 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.
Tuesday, March 29, 2022 | 14:54 WIB 184