Constitutional Justices Saldi Isra, Suhartoyo, and Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh after the preliminary hearing of the material judicial review hearing of Law No. 14 of 2005 on Teachers and Lecturers, Monday (8/1/2021). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

---

Monday, August 22, 2022 | 15:51 WIB

JAKARTA (MKRI)—The Constitutional Court (MK) held a material judicial review hearing of Law No. 14 of 2005 on Teachers and Lecturers on Monday, August 22, 2022. The case No. 77/PUU-XX/2022 was filed by Ahmad Amin, a PNS (civil servant). At the hearing presided over by Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra (panel chair), Suhartoyo, and Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh, the Petitioner argued that Article 16 paragraph (2), Article 53 paragraph (2), Article 55 paragraph (2), and Article 56 paragraph (1) of the Teacher and Lecturer Law were unconstitutional.

The Petitioner, who appeared before the Court without any legal counsel, said that the a quo articles had duplicated PNS salary that was his right into an expertise allowance equal to one time basic salary, special allowance equal to one time basic salary, and honorary allowance for professors equal to twice of basic salary. The Petitioner believed this intervened the Government/president’s authority in planning and implementing state finances in the limited APBN (state budget) and personnel management. This, he added, had intervened the president’s sovereignty in state finance management so the Government was reluctant to increase the basic salary and make policy of the 14th salary.

“Through this policy, the Government should have been able to raise the number of recipients of expertise allowances by around 7-8% with the same budget. The 14th salary policy is clear proof of the Government’s intervention and reluctance to raise the basic salary of civil servants,” the Petitioner said virtually from his residence.

This harmed the Petitioner’s right to guarantees, protection, and fair legal certainty because his low basic salary had resulted in low old-age savings due to low contributions at 3.25% of the basic salary, thus resulting in low pension due to low contribution at 4.75% of the basic salary. Welfare would this decrease because the basic salary cannot keep up with inflation rates and national economic growth. The Petitioner argued that the president as the executive prepares the state financial expenditure plan, but is in fact intervened by the legislature through the norms of the Teacher and Lecturer Law.

Therefore, in his petitum, the Petitioners requested that the Court declare 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, which determines state financial expenditure activities and ordering the president to carry them out, unconstitutional and not legally binding.

Constitutional Impairment

In response, Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo highlighted the posita, which he believed had not show causation of the Petitioner’s impairment. He advised the Petitioner to explain his loss due to the enactment of the Law to assert his legal standing in the case.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh gave recommendations on the petition format, which must follow the procedural law. He also suggested that the Petitioner simplify the petition and focus on the norms that directly relate to his impairment systematically. “Please include valid references on the amount of the allowances and salary,” he added.

Next, Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra advised the Petitioner to clarify the subject matter. The Petitioner was expected to have the petition revised in the next 14 workdays.

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

Translation uploaded on 8/23/2022 15:07 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.

---