JPPI Compares Free Private Elementary Schools in Several Countries
Image

University students attending a material judicial review hearing of the National Education System Law, Monday (2/5/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.


JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held another material judicial review hearing of Law No. 20 of 2003 on the National Education System (Sisdiknas Law) on Monday, February 5, 2024 in the plenary courtroom.

At the hearing presided over by Constitutional Justices Enny Nurbaningsih, Arief Hidayat, and Anwar Usman, legal counsel Janses E. Sihaloho explained the revisions to the petition. “The following are the revisions. First, completing a misquoted article. Next, the legal standing has been elaborated more,” he said.

The Petitioners, he added, focus on two touchstones—Article 31 paragraphs (1) and (2) and Article 28C paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. “We will concentrate on those articles only. Your Honors, we also provided some information of our [APBN (state budget and expenditure)],” he explained.

In addition, the Petitioners also added a comparison with several countries as well as research results on regions in Indonesia that have provided free education.

Also read: JPPI Requests Private Compulsory Education Be Free of Charge

Law No. 20 of 2003 on the National Education System (Sisdiknas Law) is being materially challenged to the Constitutional Court (MK). The petition No. 3/PUU-XXII/2024 was filed by CSO Network Education Watch Indonesia (New Indonesia) and three individuals petitioners—homemaker Fathiyah, homemaker Novianisa Rizkika, and mother and civil servant (PNS) Riris Risma Anjiningrum.

The Petitioners challenge the phrase “compulsory education for basic education free of cost” in Article 34 paragraph (2) of the Sisdiknas Law. The article reads in full, “The Government and local governments shall guarantee the implementation of compulsory education at least for basic education free of cost.”

At the preliminary hearing on Tuesday, January 23, 2024, legal counsel Arif Suherman alleged that the phrase was multi-interpretive since only basic education in public schools are free of cost. He argued that free basic education only applies in public schools, not in private schools. As such, the phrase “compulsory education for basic education free of cost” in Article 34 paragraph (2) has created legal uncertainty. This, he alleged, is a form of discrimination in education.

“Children may receive basic education in the private sector, not according to their wishes but due to zoning as well as the [limited] capacity of public schools. So, children who are not accepted in public schools are forced to go to private schools. However, many children drop out of school because of the cost, considering that basic education in the private sector is charged,” he said.

For this reason, in their petitum, the Petitioners asked the Court to declare the phrase “compulsory education for basic education free of cost” in Article 34 paragraph (2) of the Sisdiknas Law conditionally unconstitutional not legally binding if not interpreted as “compulsory education for basic education in public and private schools free of cost.” 

Author       : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Raisa Ayuditha Marsaulina
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.


Monday, February 05, 2024 | 17:20 WIB 60
  • Budi Wibowo Halim (Pemohon) menyampaikan pokok-pokok perbaikan atas permohonan Perkara Nomor 117/PUU-XXI/2023. Foto Humas/Ifa

    Image 1
  • Majelis Sidang Panel yang di ketuai oleh Hakim Konstitusi Enny Nurbaningsih. Foto Humas/Fauzan

    Image 2