Petitioners’ legal counsel during the decision pronouncement hearing of Case No. 135/PUU-XXI/2023 on the material judicial review of Law No. 12 of 2012 on Higher Education (Higher Education Law), Friday (29/11). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

Jakarta (MKRI) – The Constitutional Court rejected in its entirety the petition on material judicial review of Law No. 12 of 2012 on Higher Education (Higher Education Law). The petition was filed by two private university lecturers, namely Teguh Satya Bhakti and Fahmi Bachmid. The pronouncement hearing of Decision No. 135/PUU-XXI/2023 was held on Friday, November 29, 2024, in the Plenary Courtroom.

Regarding the petition’s arguments, the Court’s legal consideration, as Justice M. Guntur Hamzah delivered, stated that the budget allocation for private universities was used for lecturers' professional allowances and professors' honor allowances. Moreover, the government assigns lecturers who have the status of Civil Servants in several private universities. This is based on the provisions of Article 21 of Law No. 20 of 2023 on State Civil Apparatus, which basically states that those entitled to receive salaries and allowances from the state budget are only lecturers who have the status of civil servants. It is also emphasized in Article 49 paragraph (2) of Law No. 20 of 2003 on National Education System (Law No. 20 of 2003), Justice Guntur added.

“Basically, lecturers’ salaries, which the government assigns, are allocated in the state budget; meanwhile, for private universities, lecturers hired by private universities, their salaries and allowances are determined by work contracts between the lecturers and the private universities and subject to laws and regulations on labor,” Justice Guntur stated.

Hence, related to the petitioners’ arguments, which stated that the phrase “in accordance with the provisions of laws and regulations” in Article 70 paragraph (3) of the Higher Education Law was deemed uncertain, the Court considered that the phrase is not only used in Article 70 paragraph (3) of the Higher Education Law but also norms of Article 70 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of the Higher Education Law. In other words, the phrase “in accordance with the provisions of laws and regulations” must be adjusted to the reference of each norm. In this case, the phrase "in accordance with the provisions of laws and regulations” under norms of Article 70 paragraph (3) of the Higher Education Law refers to the norms in laws and regulations.

Budget Allocation of Private Universities

Furthermore, Justice Guntur added that the education budget of at least 20%, as stated in Article 31 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, is actually prioritized for basic education. However, the government also allocates a budget for higher education, including official education organized at ministries/institutions. In this case, for state universities, the budget allocation for higher education is used for operational costs, lecturers, education personnel, investment, and development. Meanwhile, private universities' budgets are used to assist lecturers' professional allowances, professors' honor allowances, and investment and development. In addition, it is allocated to students as financial support for attending higher education.

Thus, the basic salary and allowances paid to lecturers by private universities institutions are included in the meaning of the phrase “in accordance with the provisions of laws and regulations.” Therefore, the use of the phrase “in accordance with the provisions of laws and regulations” in Article 70 paragraph (3) of Law No. 12 of 2012 is appropriate and in accordance with the formulation in the Appendix to Law No. 12 of 2011 on the Formation of Laws and Regulations.

“ Therefore, the norms of Article 70 paragraph (3) of Law No. 12 of 2012 do not raise the issue of legal uncertainty as guaranteed in Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, not as argued by the Petitioners. Thus, the Petitioners' arguments have no basis in law in their entirety,” Justice Guntur said.

Also read:

State’s Role in Welfare of Lecturers in Private Institutions Questioned

Alleging Salary and Allowance Disparity, Private Lecturer Revises Petition 

Education Ministry: Private Lecturers’ Bases Salaries, Allowances Not Allocated 

Private Lecturer Reveals 300K Salary

Govt Asked to Set Minimum Salary for Private Lecturers

Private lecturers Teguh Satya Bhakti and Fahmi Bachmid argue that the imposition of the obligation to provide the basic salaries of private lecturers only to education providers clearly has an impact on the inequality/disparity of the basic salaries of private lecturers. It not only occurs between private and state lecturers, but also among private lecturers. Private institutions under education providers having high financial resources and located in areas with high minimum wages will certainly provide high basic salaries to their lecturers.

For the sake of justice and equality, the Petitioners request that the Court declare the phrase “in accordance with the statutory laws and regulations” in Article 70 paragraph (3) of the Higher Education Law is unconstitutional and not legally binding insofar as it is not interpreted to mean “The management body as referred to in paragraph (2) shall provide base salaries and allowances for lecturers and teaching personnel with funds generated from the National Budget and/or Regional Budget.”

Author: Sri Pujianti.

Editor: N. Rosi.

PR: Raisa Ayuditha Marsaulina.

Translators: Rizky Kurnia Chaesario/Yuniar Widiastuti

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.

 

---