Didik Suhardi representing PP Muhammadiyah after giving his testimony at the continued hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 20 of 2003 on the National Education System, Wednesday (11/09/2024). Photo PR/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA, HUMAS MKRI - The Constitutional Court held a continued hearing on the judicial review of Law No. 20 of 2003 on the National Education System (Sisdiknas Law) on Wednesday, September 11, 2024. 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. The hearing agenda was to hear the testimony of Related Parties, namely PP Muhammadiyah (cq. Majelis Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah dan Pendidikan Nonformal), PBNU (cq. LP Maarif), National Assembly of Catholic Education, Indonesian Christian Education Assembly, and Taman Siswa.

Didik Suhardi, Chairman of the Primary and Secondary Education and Non-formal Education Council of Muhammadiyah, said that overall, the policy of free education by not collecting fees from students and without optimal financial support from the government, could threaten the sustainability of the education system, especially for private schools, and could damage the quality of education in general. A better solution is to ensure adequate subsidies and fair arrangements between public and private education so that the quality and sustainability of education is maintained.

“Our recommendation on the implementation plan of Law No. 20 of 2003 Article 34 paragraph (2), “The Government and Regional Governments guarantee the implementation of compulsory education at least at the basic education level without charging fees.”, proposes that the government focus on public schools (owned by the government) not to charge fees to their students, especially to poor, underprivileged, or vulnerable poor students,” he said.

In addition, he continued that the government focuses on providing education subsidies that can be directed to economically disadvantaged students, both those attending public and private schools. Thus, the principle of social justice is maintained without sacrificing the sustainability and quality of education in private institutions.

According to PP Muhammadiyah, the government needs to develop and provide an ideal standard of education and operational costs to ensure that both public and private schools can operate properly by providing quality education. Thus, there is no inequality in education financing between schools (public or private). Returning contract-based teachers who came from private schools so that they can return to teach in their original private schools.

Furthermore, Didik said this is in accordance with Article 11 paragraph (1) of the National Education System Law, which states, "The Government and Regional Governments are obliged to provide services and facilities and guarantee the implementation of quality education for every citizen without discrimination.", and Article 41 paragraph (3) of the National Education System Law, which states, "The Government and Regional Governments are obliged to facilitate education units with educators and education personnel needed to ensure the implementation of quality education. ”, as well as Article 46 paragraph (3) of the National Education System Law which states, “Talent mobility is carried out: a. within 1 (one) government agency; b. between government agencies; or c stated that ”Talent mobility outside government agencies includes state-owned enterprises/regionally-owned enterprises, international institutions, other legal entities established by laws and regulations, and private entities.”

On the same occasion, Father Darmin Mbula, representing the Catholic National Education Council (MPNK), in his statement, said the Government is obliged to provide free education at the most basic level of education, but the implementation of a policy to free all education costs in both public and private schools requires a more comprehensive approach based on legal and policy studies that consider constitutional aspects, social welfare, and accessibility.

“This includes setting an adequate budget, autonomous adjustment with the private sector, and ensuring that the quality of education is guaranteed,” Father Darmin said during the hearing.

Darmin explained that equitable policies for public and private schools include equal subsidies or operational assistance for private and public schools. Another policy is to assist the availability of educators, such as civil servant teachers in private schools.

Meanwhile, Aarce Tehupeiory from the Christian Education Council (MPK) explained that based on the provisions of Government Regulation No. 19 of 2005 on National Education Standards, education financing standards will become a binding reference for all educational institutions from elementary schools (SD) to senior high schools (SMA), both public and private. In the process of implementing basic education, the government also conducts the BOS (School Operational Assistance) Fund program. In education, BOS funds are not given directly to students but are managed by schools to finance the needs of each student during the learning process.

In addition, in the Regulation of the Minister of Education, Culture, Research and Technology No. 63 of 2022 on Technical Guidelines for the Management of Operational Assistance Funds for Education Units, which is contained in Article 7 paragraph (2), BOS funds are divided into Regular BOS and Performance BOS funds.

According to MPK's data, 95% of Christian schools receive BOS funds, while 5% do not receive (reject) BOS funds but finance their education by collecting fees from students.

In the phrase “ Compulsory Education at the basic education level without charging fees,” the description of the specific behavior cannot be said to be certain. Therefore, MPK believes that the phrase in Article 34 paragraph (2) of the National Education System Law can be refined to “Compulsory Education at the public and private basic education levels without charging fees” so that it does not cause multiple interpretations.

Thus, he said the provisions of Article 34 paragraph (2) of the National Education System Law need to be improved. In addition, the Government needs to be consistent and consequential in allocating the Education Budget of 20% of the State Budget and Regional Budget as mandated by the Constitution.

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 Central Government Should Cover Basic Education For All Citizens

The Petitioners tested the norm of Article 34 paragraph (2) of the National Education System Law along the phrase “compulsory education at the basic education level without charging fees”. Article 34 paragraph (2) of the National Education System Law states, “The government and regional governments guarantee the implementation of compulsory education at the basic education level without charging fees.”

Previously, the Petitioners stated that the phrase was multi-interpretive, as only basic education carried out in public schools was free of charge. The Petitioners argued that the basic education level without charging fees is only carried out in public schools. Meanwhile, the basic education level 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 ask the Court to declare Article 34 paragraph (2) of the National Education System Law as long as the phrase “compulsory education at the basic education level is free of charge” is conditionally unconstitutional with the 1945 Constitution and has no binding legal force as long as it is not interpreted as “compulsory education at the basic education level which is carried out in public schools and private schools without charging fees”.

Author : Utami Argawati.

Editor: Nur R.

PR: Raisa Ayuditha Marsaulina.

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

---