Legal counsel Viktor Santoso Tandiasa conveying revisions to the judicial review petition of the Higher Education Law, Tuesday (10/31/2023). Photo by MKRI/Fauzan.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — A material judicial review hearing of Article 70 paragraph (3) and Article 89 paragraph (1) letter b of Law No. 12 of 2012 on Higher Education was held again by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Tuesday, October 31, 2023. The case No. 135/PUU-XXI/2023 was filed by Teguh Satya Bhakti, a law lecturer of Krisna Dwipayana University.

Previously, the Petitioner challenged Article 70 paragraph (3) and Article 89 paragraph (1) letter b of the Higher Education Law. However, at this petition revision hearing, the Petitioner removed Article 89 paragraph (1) letter b of the Higher Education Law from the petition. During the hearing, legal counsel Viktor Santoso Tandiasa mentioned several things that had been revised, including the addition of Petitioner II Fachri Bachmid. Petitioner II is a lecturer at the Muslim University of Indonesia, Makassar. The Petitioners also clarified that the background for the petition is that the private higher education organizing bodies are entitled to receive funds sourced from the state or regional budgets (APBN or APBD).

The Petitioner mentioned that the state (government) obligations towards private and state higher education institutions (PTS and PTN) should be fulfilled and both should be treated equally. The difference between both is only the establishment and organizers: public ones are established and/or organized by the Government, while private ones by the community.

“Without funding from the APBN and APBD, private higher education institutions are unable to provide basic salaries and benefits to lecturers and education staff equally and evenly. Finally, the measure is the regency/city minimum wage (UMK) by following the regime of Law No. 13/2003. In contrast, state ones get equal salaries as stipulated in Government Regulation No. 15 of 2019,” Tandiasa said before Constitutional Justices M. Guntur Hamzah, Enny Nurbaningsih, and Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh.

He also said that in higher education funds sourced from the APBN and/or APBD are not allocated for lecturers’ basic salaries, so as stipulated in Article 70 paragraph (3) of Law No. 2 of 2012, they are determined based on the ability of each institution, which is measured by the minimum wage (UMK). “Considering Article 70 paragraph (2) of Law No. 12 of 2012, the appointment and placement of lecturers and education personnel are based on work agreements that refer to Law No. 13 of 2003,” he added.

Moreover, he said, the imposition of the obligation to provide the basic salaries of private lecturers only to the organizing body clearly has an impact on the inequality/disparity of the basic salaries of private lecturers. It not only occurs between private and state lecturers, but also among private lecturers. Private institutions under organizing bodies having high financial resources and located in areas with high minimum wages will certainly provide high basic salaries to their lecturers.

“On the other hand, those under organizing bodies with low financial resources, especially those located in areas with low minimum wages, will certainly provide low basic salaries to their lecturers. The emergence of this inequality/gap is one of the reasons for filing this petition,” explained Tandiasa.

Also read: State’s Role in Welfare of Lecturers in Private Institutions Questioned

The Petitioner asserts 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.

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.”

Author       : Fauzan F./L.A.P.
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.

---