Constitutional Justices M. Guntur Hamzah, Enny Nurbaningsih, and Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh presiding over the judicial review hearing of the Higher Education Law, Wednesday (10/18/2023). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — A Lecturer from the Law Faculty of Krisna Dwipayana University, Teguh Satya Bhakti, has filed a material judicial review petition of Article 70 paragraph (3) and Article 89 paragraph (1) letter b of Law No. 12 of 2012 on Higher Education. The preliminary hearing for case No. 135/PUU-XXI/2023 was presided over by Constitutional Justices M. Guntur Hamzah, Enny Nurbaningsih, and Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh on Wednesday, October 18, 2023.

Article 70 paragraph (3) of the Higher Education Law reads, “The management body as referred to in paragraph (2) shall provide base salaries and allowances for lecturers and teaching personnel in accordance with statutory laws and regulations.” Meanwhile, Article 89 paragraph (1) letter b reads, “The Higher Education funds generated from the National Budget and/or Regional Budget as referred to in Article 83 paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be allocated to: b. PTS, as contributions to professional allowance of lecturers, honorary allowance of professors, and investment and development.”

Viktor Santoso Tandiasa, the Petitioner’s legal counsel, asserted that Law No. 14 of 2005 on Teachers and Lecturers (Teacher-Lecturer Law) does not stipulate any distinction between the obligations of public university lecturers and those of private ones. With them having the same and equal obligations, the state should fulfill the rights of lecturers and education personnel at both public (PTN) or private higher education institutions (PTS) as they deserve. However, in reality, basic salaries and allowances for lecturers and education staff at PTS are completely within the authority of the management board, with no regulation by the state. There is even no intervention in subsidy for PTS by the government. The Petitioner believes the articles to be contrary to Article 1 paragraph (3), Article 28D paragraph (1), and Article 34 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution due to inconsistency with the 1945 Constitution, the supreme law, which has determined the state’s obligation in the field of education through the operation and organization of a national education system.

“Education funding the is the state’s obligation as it relates to the rights of citizens, so the state is not only obliged to respect and protect [PTS]. Even though a PTS is established by the community by forming a legal entity of a foundation or association, this does not mean that the government does not have responsibility to participate and provide educational resources for PTS,” Tandiasa said.

For that reason, in the petitum, the Petitioner requests that the Court declare the phrase “in accordance with the statutory laws and regulations” in Article 70 paragraph (3) of the Higher Education Law is unconstitutional insofar as it is not interpreted to mean “whose funds are sourced from Higher Education funds subsidized by the government to higher education units organized by the community.”

“[The Petitioner also requests that the Court] declare Article 89 paragraph (1) letter b of Law No. 12/2012 on Higher Education along the phrase ‘as an allowance for lecturers’ professional allowances, professors’ honor allowances, and investment and development’ is unconstitutional insofar as it is not interpreted to mean ‘as contributions to professional allowance of lecturers, honorary allowance of professors, and investment and development,’” Tandiasa added.

Justices’ Advice

Responding to this petition, Constitutional Justice Enny highlighted the Petitioner’s legal standing as a university lecturer and an individual Indonesian citizen. She said that the Petitioner had not clearly explained the gap between PTN and PTS, since the Petitioner is a civil servant lecturer, while the petition is about the welfare of non-civil servant lecturers.

“What exactly is the difference between [lecturers’ salaries and benefits] from [PTS] and [PTN]. The loss is not clear here because the Petitioner is a civil servant. Try to find proof that illustrates disparity, for example, [a PTS] is only able to provide this much salaries while equally carrying out national education,” she advised.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Foekh advised the Petitioner to observe the minutes of lawmaking sessions of the norms he challenged, and compare it to Article 31 of the 1945 Constitution. “Is 20% enough for education budget in a reasonable view and compare it to other countries whose universities transform from private to public. Try to elaborate so that it can strengthen the arguments of the petition,” he explained.

At the end of the hearing, Constitutional Justice Guntur informed the Petitioner that he would have 14 workdays to revise the petition and to submit it to the Registrar’s Office no later than October 31, 2023 at 09:00 WIB.

Author       : Sri Pujianti
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Andhini S.F.
Translator  : Tahlitha Laela/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.

---