Burdened by Tuition, Parent Challenges National Education Law
Image

Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih chairing the panel preliminary hearing of the judicial review of Law Number 20 of 2003 on the National Education System, Wednesday (6/22/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.


Wednesday, June 22, 2022 | 15:29 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) held the preliminary hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 20 of 2003 on the National Education System (Sisdiknas) on Wednesday, June 22, 2022. It was presided over by Constitutional Justices Enny Nurbaningsih (panel chair), Manahan M. P. Sitompul, and Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh. The case No. 65/PUU-XX/2022 was filed by a private employee, Mochamad Manshuri. Legal counsel Rafi Auliyaa R. alleged that Article 12 paragraph (2) letter b of the National Education System was in violation of Article 31 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution.

Article 12 paragraph (2) letter b of the National Education System reads, “Every learner shall be responsible for: b. taking part in the implementation of education by paying prescribed fee, except for learners who are exempted from said obligation in accordance with the regulations in force.”

Rafi said that as a parent of eight children, Manshuri felt burdened by the provision, which he believed obligated learners at elementary level to pay or bear the costs of education, except those exempted.

He argued that Article 31 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution explicitly mandates hat the government fund the people’s basic education. The article in question reads, “Each national shall follow basic education and the government shall finance this.” Therefore, he believed the Law had defined learners without any distinction of education levels and mandated that the government finance their education.

“Therefore, the Petitioner through the petitum requests that the Court declare the a quo article unconstitutional,” explained Rafi, who is a law student of Lampung University.

Constitutional Impairment

In response, Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul said the Petitioner would need to explain the constitutional impairment that had arisen from the enactment of the norm in question. The Petitioner should also revise the petition to follow the standard format as well as revise his profile and explain the concrete case that his child experienced due to the enactment of the National Education System Law.

“In this case, the one who experienced [the issue] and who is meant by a learner is the Petitioner’s child. So, the legal standing of the child’s parent(s) in this case must be explained,” Justice Manahan said.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh explained the formal requirements for granting power and power of attorney and advised the Petitioner to study similar cases on the same norm, such as case No. 11/PUU-VII/2009. Then, Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih commented on the explanation of the impairment of the constitutional rights granted by the 1945 Constitution due to the norm being challenged. “Explain the relation between the rights in the Constitution and the norm petitioned for review,” she explained.

Before concluding the hearing, the panel gave the Petitioner 14 workdays to revise the petition until Tuesday, July 5, 2022 and to submit it to the Registrar’s Office.

Writer        : Sri Pujianti
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Fitri Yuliana
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 6/23/2022 15:13 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.


Wednesday, June 22, 2022 | 15:29 WIB 19