Ministry of Finance, represented by Isa Rachmatarwata as Director General of Budget, delivering testimony during judicial review hearing of National Education System Law, Wednesday (14/08/2024). Photo by MKRI/Bayu
JAKARTA, HUMAS MKRI—The central government should provide basic education for all Indonesian citizens. This is because basic education is a compulsory education mandated by the 1945 Constitution.
This statement was conveyed by the Deputy Chairperson of the Constitutional Court, Saldi Isra, in the continued review hearing of Law No. 20 of 2003 on the National Education System (Sisdiknas Law) held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Thursday, August 14, 2024, in the Plenary Courtroom. Case No. 3/PUU-XXII/2024 was filed by the Indonesian Education Monitoring Network and three individual petitioners named Fathiyah, Novianisa Rizkika, and Riris Risma Anjiningrum. Fathiyah and Novianisa are housewives. Meanwhile, Riris is a mother who works as a civil servant.
“Basic education should be controlled by the central government because that is what the Constitution requires. Not the other way around. But now what is obligatory is given to the regions with the transfer funds, then beyond that it becomes unclear or not explicit,” said Saldi in a hearing chaired by Chief Justice Suhartoyo.
In a hearing scheduled to listen to the Ministry of Finance testimony, Saldi revealed that guaranteeing basic education for every citizen will make it easier for the state. “The Government should prioritize the compulsory ones, especially the central Government, and then followed by the others. So that if the base (basic education) is strong, the Government can guarantee that it will be easier to reach the next level,” said Saldi.
Chief Justice Suhartoyo made a similar statement, questioning the proportionality of the 52.1% fund transfer scheme to the regions. He doubted whether all regional needs, especially in the primary and secondary education sectors, had been optimally met through this scheme. Suhartoyo highlighted the possibility of obstacles to implementation at the regional level or even flaws in the scheme's design. He also suggested that crucial primary and secondary education funding be pulled back to the center to ensure quality and equity of services.
“In terms of proportionality, has the scheme been reached by all when later the parts that cannot be reached are part of the implementation problem, or is there a little doubt in the 52.1 percent transfer scheme to the regions where there is actually a difficult control problem, or it could be that the implementation is very dependent on how the regions actualize or realize this 52.1 percent. If it is for the crucial elementary and junior high schools, why not just withdraw it to the center?” Suhartoyo said.
Space for the Community to Participate
Meanwhile, Director General of Budget of the Ministry of Finance Isa Rachmatarwata, in a hearing chaired by Chief Justice Suhartoyo, said that Article 4 Paragraph (6), Article 8, Article 9, Article 11, Article 34 paragraph (2), and Article 46 Paragraph (1) of the Sisdiknas Law are interrelated and strengthen the roles and responsibilities of the government, local governments, and the community in supporting the constitutional mandate of Article 31 of the 1945 Constitution to ensure the implementation of compulsory education for all levels of society. The National Education System Law provides space for the community to participate in organizing education through private schools and, at the same time, provides options for the community to choose private schools with certain considerations according to the preferences and abilities of guardians and students.
“To answer various questions related to this education budget, let us start from the mandate of Article 31 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution, which stipulates that “The state prioritizes an education budget of at least twenty percent of the state revenue and expenditure budget and from the regional revenue and expenditure budget to meet the needs of organizing national education,” Isa said.
According to Isa, this mandate was followed up by the Government together with the DPR through the enactment of the National Education System Law. Article 49 paragraph (1) of the Sisdiknas Law stipulates that “Education funds other than educators‘ salaries and official education costs” are allocated a minimum of 20% of the State Budget (APBN) in the education sector and a minimum of 20% of the Regional Budget (APBD), which later through Constitutional Court Decision No. 024/PUU-V/2007, the phrase “educators’ salaries and” has been declared unconstitutional.
Realization of Basic Education
In addition, Isa emphasized that the realization of free basic education is mainly implemented in government-owned schools. As for private schools, independent payments can still be made to private school organizers. In line with this, the Government has and will continue to provide support to private schools in the form of assistance to reduce the cost of education to become cheaper, through the support of School Operational Costs (BOS) for private schools, the Smart Indonesia Program (PIP) for students from poor families who attend private schools, or the allocation of Teacher Professional Allowances (TPG) for teachers who teach in private schools. The Sisdiknas Law provides open space for the community to participate in supporting national education, both because historically private support has been carried out since the Republic of Indonesia was not yet independent and because, factually, there is a community need for schools with special standards that are different from public schools.
In addition, Isa said, the problem of students not being accommodated in public schools and having to choose private schools is a problem at the implementation level, either because of the not optimal capacity and distribution of public schools, the range, and level of population density, or the implementation of imperfect education policies. For this reason, the Government is committed to continuing to make improvements, both in terms of education policy and funding support.
“We remain optimistic that the community will continue to provide its support in the implementation of education for the nation's children, and at the same time provide supervision and constructive criticism for the realization of increasingly qualified and highly competitive human resources,” said Isa.
Answering questions from the Panel of Justices, Isa emphasized that Sisdiknas Law is inseparable from other laws, namely the Regional Autonomy Law. Then, the division of authority between the center and the regions, which, of course, also becomes a reference in determining management. According to Isa, this may be an area where efforts are made not only by the central government but also by local governments.
“We take an example in the management of regional roads, which last year became a very interesting issue to follow where the president found that the management of several roads in the regions was not good. Then, the president took a step by making a presidential instruction to strengthen the maintenance of regional roads by the central government, in this case, the Ministry of PUPR, without reducing the role of regional governments to remain responsible for the maintenance of regional roads. This may be one example where we can also make tips to increase the role of the central government without violating other laws, in this case, the Regional Autonomy Law, which gives duties to local governments,” Isa 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
Government’s Responsibility in Education Under Question
The Government Commits to Provide High Quality Compulsory Education
The Petitioners challenged the norm of Article 34 paragraph (2) of the National Education System Law, which states, "Compulsory education at the basic education level is free of charge." Article 34 paragraph (2) of the Sisdiknas Law states, "The government and regional governments guarantee the implementation of compulsory education at the basic education level without charging fees."
Previously, the Petitioners argued that the phrase was multi-interpretative, as only basic education carried out in public schools was free of charge. The Petitioners argued that the level of basic education without charging fees is only carried out in public schools. Meanwhile, the level of basic education carried out in private schools is still charged. Therefore, Article 34 paragraph (2) of the National Education System Law, along with the phrase “compulsory education at the basic education level is free of charge”, has created legal uncertainty. This is a form of educational discrimination.
For this reason, in their petitum, the Petitioners request that the Constitutional Court declares Article 34 paragraph (2) of the National Education System Law, insofar as the phrase “compulsory education at the basic education level is free of charge”, to be conditionally unconstitutional with the 1945 Constitution and has no binding legal force as long as it is not interpreted to mean “compulsory education at the basic education level which is carried out in public schools and private schools without charging fees”.(*)
Author: Utami Argawati
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR: Raisa Ayuditha
Translator: Rizky Kurnia Chaesario (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