Civil servant Ahmad Amin attending the material judicial review hearing of Law No. 14 of 2005 on Teachers and Lecturers virtually, Monday (9/5/2022). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

Monday, September 5, 2022 | 14:47 WIB

JAKARTA (MKRI)—The Constitutional Court (MK) held another material judicial review hearing of Law No. 14 of 2005 on Teachers and Lecturers on Monday, September 5, 2022. The case No. 77/PUU-XX/2022 was filed by Ahmad Amin, a PNS (civil servant), who 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.

At the hearing presided over by Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra (panel chair), Suhartoyo, and Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh, the Petitioner conveyed virtually revisions to the petition: the legal standing, the background of the petition, and the DPD (Regional Representatives Council) in the proposal of bill of law on education. He questioned the legislative authority over bill introduction. “In the petitum, [the Petitioner] requests that the Court grant the Petitioner’s petition in its entirety,” he said.

Also read: Provision on Salary and Allowance Raise in Teacher-Lecturer Law Challenged

The Petitioner asserted 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.

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.

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

Translation uploaded on 9/8/2022 10:03 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.

---