Chief Justice Anwar Usman reading out the verdict of the material judicial review of Law No. 20 of 2003 on the National Education System, Wednesday, September 27 at the Plenary Courtroom. Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) has ruled against the judicial review petition of Article 11 paragraph (1) of Law No. 20 of 2003 on the National Education System (Sisdiknas Law). The petition was filed by Leonardo Siahaan, who challenged the the zoning system in state school admission (PPDB).

The ruling hearing for case No. 85/PUU-XXI/2023 took place on Wednesday, September 27, 2023 in the plenary courtroom. “[The Court] adjudicated, rejects the Petitioner’s petition in its entirety,” said Chief Justice Anwar Usman reading out the verdict alongside the eight constitutional justices.

In its legal opinion, the Court stated that the constitutionality issue questioned by the Petitioner could not be separated from the essence of Article 11 paragraph (1) on the Sisdiknas Law, which reads, “The Government and local governments shall have to provide services and facilities, and ensure the implementation of quality education for every citizen without discrimination.” It is the implementation of the Preamble to the 1945 Constitution and is inextricably linked to the “considering” part of the Sisdiknas Law, which is the spirit of the formulation of the a quo article.

Furthermore, the Preamble to the 1945 Constitution mandates the Government to protect the entire Indonesian nation and homeland, as well as to promote general welfare, educate the nation’s life, and participate in the implementation of a world order based on independence, lasting peace, and social justice. The 1945 Constitution also mandates the Government to seek and organize a national education system that increases faith and piety in God Almighty and noble character in order to educate the nation’s life.

Therefore, the national education system is expected to be able to guarantee the equitable distribution of educational opportunities, improved quality and relevance, and efficiency of education management to meet the challenges of changes in local, national, and global life so educational reform must be carried out in a planned, directed, and sustainable manner,” said Constitutional Justice Manahan M.P. Sitompul reading out the legal opinion.

Zoning System

The Petitioner requested that Article 11 paragraph (1) of the Sisdiknas Law be interpreted so as not to cause discrimination in the state school admission using the zoning system. The Court stated that the zoning system is one method of admitting new students using regional restrictions due to minimum school capacity. Therefore, any state school admission methods, including by other means such as affirmation, parental/guardian job transfer, and/or honors admission are viable.  

Not a Constitutionality Issue

According to the Court, the Petitioner’s argument was not related to the constitutionality of Article 11 paragraph (1) of the Sisdiknas Law because it mandates the Government and regional governments to provide quality education for every citizen without any discrimination.

“Therefore, the Petitioner’s argument is irrelevant for further consideration because the zoning system in state school admission is implemented based on regulations under the law based on Article 11 paragraph (1) of Law No. 20 of 2003. Therefore, the Court believes Article 11 paragraph (1) of Law No. 20 of 2003 is in line with the spirit and goal of the state as stated in the fourth paragraph of the Preamble to the 1945 Constitution,” Justice Manahan said.

The Court held that the Petitioner’s argument that Article 11 paragraph (1) of the Sisdiknas Law had caused discrimination due to the zoning system in the state school admission was not an issue of constitutionality.  “If what was questioned by the Petitioner was true, it would be a matter of norm implementation that was not related to the constitutionality of Article 11 paragraph (1) of Law No. 20 of 2003,” Justice Manahan continued.

Also read:

Petitioner Alleges Students Traumatized by Zoning System

Petitioner Revises Petition Challenging School Zoning System 

Dissenting Opinion

Constitutional Justice M. Guntur Hamzah delivered a dissenting opinion. He stated that the petition should be declared inadmissible because the Petitioner did not have legal standing.

“I believe that the petition should not be rejected but be declared inadmissible (niet ontvankelijke verklaard), due to the lack of legal standing. Thus, [the Court] should not have gone into the assessment of the norm in review as stated in the subject matter of the petiion,” he said.

Author       : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Raisa Ayuditha
Translator  : Nyi Mas Laras Nur Inten Kemalasari/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.

---