Education expert Ki Darmaningtyas testifying as an expert for the Petitioners at a material judicial review hearing of Law No. 20 of 2003 on the National Education System, Tuesday (7/9/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — Private schools, especially the first and second generation, have played a major role in educating the nation since the beginning of independence, when the government was not able to provide education for all its citizens. This great role still continues today, but the government’s attention to private schools has declined.

The statement was made by education expert Ki Darmaningtyas in his testimony at a material judicial review hearing of Law No. 20 of 2003 on the National Education System (Sisdiknas Law) on Tuesday, July 9, 2024 in the plenary courtroom before Chief Justice Suhartoyo and the other eight constitutional justices. The case was filed by CSO Jaringan Pemantau Pendidikan Indonesia (JPPI) or Network Education Watch Indonesia (New Indonesia) and three individual petitioners—Fathiyah, Novianisa Rizkika, and Riris Risma Anjiningrum

“Those who attend private schools are also tax-paying citizens, so they are entitled to government support to establish new public schools or giving grants to private schools,” Ki Darmaningtyas asserted.

He explained that with sufficient funding, private schools can be free of charge. Making private schools free is much more efficient than establishing new public schools or giving grants to private schools.

He also said third- and fourth-generation private schools have different founding backgrounds and can therefore be excluded from the view that private schooling should also be free.

Unclear Allocation

Responding to the constitutional justice’s question about the mechanism for education budget distribution, Ki Darmaningtyas revealed that there had been problems with the education budget after the Constitutional Court Decision No. 13/PUU-VI/2008. For example, teacher and lecturer certification was considered the highest spending of the education budget.

“So, in the Sisdiknas Law, the education budget is at least 20 percent outside the salaries of teachers and lecturers. After the decision, the salaries of teachers and lecturers are included. The consequence of the inclusion [this], the more teachers and lecturers get certification, the less the education budget is left,” he said.

Ki Darmaningtyas added that the Law needs to be amended with a clearer description of the allocation of the education budget. He emphasized that budget for government-affiliated schools should be attached to each ministry.

“Where does the education budget in question go to? It has been used by the Ministry of Education and Culture as well as the Ministry of Religion. In addition, it is also for government-affiliated education, which should be attached to each ministry. As long as the budget for government-affiliated education is attached to the education budget, there will be no free education,” he explained.

Also read:

JPPI Requests Private Compulsory Education Be Free of Charge

JPPI Compares Free Private Elementary Schools in Several Countries

House: State Needs Community in Implementing Education 

Govt: Basic Education Costs in Line with 1945 Constitution

Law No. 20 of 2003 on the National Education System (Sisdiknas Law) is being materially challenged to the Constitutional Court (MK) in case No. 3/PUU-XXII/2024. 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.

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.” 

Authors            : Utami Argawati/Jihan Nibras/L.A.P.
Editor               : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR                   : Raisa Ayuditha
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.

---