Amich Alhumami, Deputy for Human Development of the Ministry of National Development Planning/Bappenas, testifying at the follow-up hearing on the judicial review of Law No. 20/2003 on the National Education System, Thursday (01/08) at the Courtroom, Thursday (8/1/2024). 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 Thursday, August 1, 2024 in the plenary courtroom. The case No. 3/PUU-XXII/2024 was filed by CSO Jaringan Pemantau Pendidikan Indonesia (JPPI) or Network Education Watch Indonesia (New Indonesia), housewives Fathiyah and Novianisa Rizkika, and civil servant Riris Risma Anjiningrum who is also a mother.

Deputy for Human Development, Society and Culture of the Ministry of National Development Planning/Bappenas Amich Alhumami said that the 1945 Constitution mandates the allocation of a minimum of 20% of the State Budget and Regional Budget to meet the needs of national education. According to him, the Government is fully committed and has made serious and optimal efforts to organize quality compulsory education without charging fees in both public and private schools.

"Fiscal limitations do not allow for the freeing of private schools due to variations in the standard of service of private schools and consideration of the priority scale in education development," Amich explained in the hearing led by Chief Justice Suhartoyo.

However, Amich emphasized, in terms of education development performance, education participation at the basic education level has reached the Plenary Completion category for SD/MI/equivalent (APK 105.62%) and Primary Completion for SMP/MTs/equivalent (APK 92.51%). This indicates that the Government has made efforts to ensure equal rights for school-age children to obtain quality basic education services equally. In addition, the Government also continues to be committed to providing affirmative policies for the poor, among others in the form of social assistance in the field of education.

Responding to the statement, Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra suggested that Bappenas provide a more detailed explanation of the education budget posture of 20% of the State Budget. It is important to obtain a clear picture of the allocation of these funds, especially in the context of education management in the regions.

"Please explain the 20% allocation because if it is in the regions, the management is different. So that we understand the minimum 20% allocation, how is the full picture in the management of our education," said Saldi.

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

Education Expert Urges Govt to Support Private Sector

Government’s Responsibility in Education Under Question

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 has resulted in multiple interpretations 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 and not legally binding if not interpreted as “compulsory education for basic education in public and private schools free of cost.” 

Authors          : Utami Argawati/L.A.P.
Editor             : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR                 : Raisa Ayuditha
Translators     : Rizky Kurnia Chaesario, 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.

---