Constitutional Justices Enny Nurbaningsih, M. Guntur Hamzah, and Arsul Sani presiding over the preliminary hearing of the judicial review of the National Education System Law, Thursday (3/21/2024). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held the preliminary hearing of the material judicial review of Article 3 of Law No. 20 of 2003 on the National Education System (Sisdiknas) for case No. 40/PUU-XXII/2024 on Thursday, March 21, 2024 in the plenary courtroom. The Petitioners claimed that the norm has not guaranteed the right of Indonesian children to nutritious food.

“We believe that the National Education System Law has not guaranteed the right of Indonesian children to nutritious food, Your Honors. Article 3 of the Law only regulates the objectives of national education, without specifically regulating how the Government guarantees the right of Indonesian children to nutritious food,” said I Dewa Made Agung Kertha Nugraha before Constitutional Justices Enny Nurbaningsih, M. Guntur Hamzah, and Arsul Sani.

The Petitioners argued that Article 3 of the National Education System Law contradicts Article 28B paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution, which states that every child has the right to live, grow, and develop in a healthy manner and to be protected from adverse influences. The Petitioners feel that their constitutional right to obtain guarantee for the fulfillment of their children’s right to nutritious food has been impaired by the enforcement of Article 3 of the National Education System Law.

Nugraha explained that national education serves to develop abilities and shape the character and civilization of a dignified nation in order to educate the nation’s life. National education aims to develop the students’ potential of becoming human beings who are faithful and devoted to God Almighty, have noble character, are healthy, knowledgeable, capable, creative, independent, and become democratic and responsible citizens.

Meanwhile, the Petitioners believe the article only regulates the objectives of national education, without specifically regulating how the Government guarantees the right of Indonesian children to nutritious food. Although the National Education System Law includes the objective to develop the learners’ potential to become healthy human beings, there is no detailed explanation of how this will be achieved, particularly in the context of nutrition.

The Petitioners are founder and executive director of the Indonesia Food Security Review Foundation I Dewa Made Agung Kertha Nugraha, the Student Council Forum represented by Winda Purnama Ningsih, the Indonesian Student Welfare Alliance Society represented by Galvien Krisna, and individuals Alfatehan Septianta and Rifaldo Deska Putra. In their petitum, they request that Article 3 of the National Education System Law be amended to state that national education aims to develop students’ potential of becoming human beings who are faithful and devoted to God Almighty, have noble character, are healthy, knowledgeable, capable, creative, independent, and become democratic and responsible citizens; to improve the quality and relevance of education to the needs of society and global challenges; and to provide healthy and nutritious food for every school child, in both public and private schools, every day throughout Indonesia.

Petition Written by AI

When the constitutional justices gave their advice, it was revealed that the petition was written using artificial intelligence (AI). At first, Constitutional Justice M. Guntur Hamzah tolerated the petition’s shortcomings, since it was the first time the petitioners filed a petition to the Court. Then, he highlighted the format that did not meet standard.

“The format is similar to previous petitions. Which one did it model?” he asked, to which Nugraha anwered “none.” Justice Guntur then asked again, “Not one [sample]?” Nugraha answered, “We used AI.”

Justice Guntur also found a misquote of the article of the 1945 Constitution. “The AI mistakenly quoted Article 28B paragraph (2), which is inaccurate. Please check and recheck it with [the Constitution]. Do not blindly follow the AI. [You] can use AI, but [you] must check [the petition] again to ensure that what the AI wrote is accurate,” he said.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Arsul Sani asked whether the petition had anything to do with the free lunch program, “Before I give my advice, does this petition have anything to do with the free lunch program?”

He recommended that the Petitioners consider whether the petition’s argument on the fulfillment of children’s right to nutritious food is appropriately related to the National Education System Law, not the Food Law. Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih echoed the sentiment. She also did not think the connection accurate.

“For the object being reviewed, the issue does not match. It could be that not the National Education System Law that [should be] reviewed. If the revision still refers to nutrition, [the petition] could become vague,” she said.

However, she reminded the Petitioners that the cannot change the object or the law being challenged in the same petition. If they wish to do so, they should file a new petition after withdrawing the a quo petition.

“If you would like to change [the law], as a rookie, you must read first the Constitutional Court Regulation No. 2 of 2021. You cannot read it using AI since you cannot find the right sense that way. It would be rigid, out of touch. If you want to change the law, you can’t,” Justice Enny explained.

Before adjourning the hearing, Justice Enny reminded the Petitioners that they would have 14 workdays to revise the petition and submit it by Wednesday, April 3, 2024 at 09:00 WIB. The revision would require no change to the object of the petition. Any change to the law being petitioned would require the petition be retracted first and a new one be filed.

Author       : Mimi Kartika
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Fauzan Febriyan
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.

---