Petitioner Leonardo Siahaan at the preliminary hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 20 of 2003 on the National Education System, Wednesday (8/30/2023). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.
JAKARTA (MKRI) — The zoning system for state school admission (PPDB) has traumatized students, alleged Leonardo Siahaan citing one of the reasons he filed a judicial review petition of Law No. 20 of 2003 on the National Education System (Sisdiknas) to the Constitutional Court (MK). The Registrar’s Office registered the petition as case No. 85/PUU-XXI/2023.
The preliminary hearing to examine this case took place on site on Wednesday, August 30, 2023. At the hearing, the Petitioner revealed that he is a firstborn in his family and that he has two biological younger brothers, Simon Fransisco Siahaan and Yoel Riski Siahaan. He alleges that his brothers have been traumatized by the zoning system for state school admission.
“The Petitioner’s biological younger siblings have constitutional impairment due to trauma caused by the zoning system for state school admission. The trauma emerged during admission at state schools located not far from home. Finally, by the parents’ decision, the Petitioner’s siblings chose to enroll in private schools. The zoning system had caused constitutional impairment in many members of the community, not only in my two siblings,” he revealed.
He explained that the zoning system is regulated in the Ministry of Education and Culture’s Regulation (Permendikbud) No. 44 of 2019 on the admission of freshmen in kindergartens, elementary schools, junior high schools, senior high schools, and vocational senior high schools. The regulation is the implementation of Article 11 paragraph (1) of Law No. 20 of 2023. The Petitioner could not file a material judicial review petition of the norm to the Supreme Court because he would have to pay for an administrative fee of five million rupiahs. Not being able to afford the fee, he then chose to take the issue to the Constitutional Court by petitioning Article 11 paragraph (1) of Sisdiknas Law.
He alleged that the system has many drawbacks and has inaccurate coordinate maps.
“The system prioritizes ‘proximity’ by using the Google Map application. The coordinates are often inaccurate, leading to prospective students failing the PPDB,” he emphasized.
In addition, the Petitioner alleges, the zoning system likely leads to schools being overwhelmed by high student enrollment. This is because upon evaluation on the PPDB, it was discovered that regional governments had difficulties in mapping the number of school-age children who participated in the PPDB and the schools’ capacity. As a result, the zoning system is difficult to apply. The Petitioner also alleges that the system has bred manipulation of family registry so that children can enroll in flagship schools.
“So, it can be said that the zoning system is very problematic. This is not only the Petitioner’s opinion, but a sentiment shared by the wider public, and it can be said to be a domino effect. It has many drawbacks. Not all schools are prepared for it. Its main objective is to equalize education. However, it will be difficult if the facilities and infrastructure are not evenly distributed. The majority of schools in Indonesia do not meet quality standards,” he said.
In his petitum, the Petitioner requests that the Court declare Article 11 paragraph (1) of Sisdiknas Law conditionally unconstitutional and not legally binding if not interpreted as “the Government and the Regional Government shall be obliged to provide services and facilities, as well as guarantee the implementation of quality education for every citizen without discrimination and prohibit the admission of students through the zoning system or other policies that hinder students from receiving education.”
Justices’ Advice
In response, Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat advised the Petitioner to contrast Article 11 paragraph (1) of Sisdiknas Law with Article 28C paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.
“Please observe the consistency, coherence, and correspondence between Article 11 paragraph (1) of Sisdiknas Law and Article 28C paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. Please observe and study them carefully. In the petition’s background, not once do you say that the article contradicts Article 28C paragraph (1) of the Constitution. Instead, you only say that the zoning system has harmed the community, harmed your younger siblings, and led to issues. Is the concrete case that has occurred due to an issue with Article 11 paragraph (1) [of Sisdiknas Law], which in contrast with Article 28C paragraph (1) [of the Constitution], or not?” he said.
Next, Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul said the Petitioner had elaborated the article petitioned and referred to Constitutional Court decisions. “This must be elaborated and the article petitioned must be explained first, then the Constitutional Court Decisions No. 6 of 2005 and No. 11 of 2007 be elaborated. Then explain the constitutional rights presumed to be harmed by the law one by one,” he explained.
Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice M. Guntur Hamzah asked the Petitioner to observe the norm. The zoning system that he is faced with is a concrete case. “You have an issue with the zoning system, which is an issue of implementation of the norm,” he said.
Before adjourning the session, the panel announced that the Petitioner had 14 workdays to revise the petition and submit it no later than Tuesday, September 12 to the Registrar’s Office.
Author : Utami Argawati
Editor : Nur R.
PR : Raisa Ayuditha
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
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, August 30, 2023 | 14:55 WIB 191