Robby Sopyan (Petitioner) delivering the revisions to his petition against Law No. 23 of 2014 on Regional Governments at a hearing for case No. 158/PUU-XXIII/2025, Tuesday (9/23/2025). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held the second hearing for the material judicial review of Law No. 23 of 2014 on Regional Governments. The petition revision hearing for case No. 158/PUU-XXIII/2025 took place on Wednesday, September 10, 2025 in the plenary courtroom.

The petition was filed by Robby Sopyan, a teacher. He challenges the constitutionality of Article 12 paragraph (1) and Article 15 paragraph (1) of the Regional Government Law, which regulate the division of governmental affairs between the central and regional governments, including education.

Appeared virtually at the hearing chaired by Chief Justice Suhartoyo, the Petitioner explained the revisions he had made to the petition. “The revisions concern the subject matter under review, namely Article 15 paragraph (1), Article 15 paragraph (2), and Appendix letter a,” he stated before the panel of justices.

He also presented revisions to the object of the petition. He added an elaboration of Article 15 paragraph (1), Article 15 paragraph (2), as well as a matrix of the appendix regarding the division of governmental affairs in the field of education. In the section on legal standing, he provided a more detailed explanation.

“Points 1 through 6 of the posita (reason for the petition) were deleted and replaced with points 1 through 12. Point 7 became point 13. Points 1 through 13 are now arranged implicitly from juridical and philosophical grounds to sociological considerations or factual conditions, Your Honors,” he explained.

In addition, the Petitioner included several scholarly articles and cited Constitutional Court Regulations (PMK) under points 11 and 12. In the revised petitums (requests), he requests that the Court grant the petition in its entirety. He also asks the Court to declare Article 15 paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Regional Government Law and Appendix letter a, subsection on Education Management, conditionally unconstitutional and without binding legal force insofar as not interpreted to mean “the authority over these affairs rests entirely with the Central Government, except for the management of infrastructure and facilities.” He further requests that the Court declare Appendix letter a, subsection on Educators and Education Personnel, as well as subsection on Education Licenses under the Regional Government Law, conditionally unconstitutional and without binding legal force insofar as not interpreted to mean that authority over both affairs rests entirely with the Central Government.

Also read: Teacher Petitions Court to Return Education Affairs to Central Govt

The Petitioner has previously argued that decentralization of education has led to various problems, such as tug-of-war over authority between central and regional governments in relation to teachers as well as school infrastructure development. He cited studies suggesting that decentralization often results in the loss of clear direction in education policy.

He also drew a comparison with the system in France, where education is managed centrally by the ministry, while local governments focus only on supporting facilities, such as school infrastructure and student meal services. According to him, this model could serve as a solution for the allocation of 20 percent of regional budgets (APBD) for education as mandated by the Constitution.

Author         : Utami Argawati
Editor          : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR               : Andhini S.F.
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.

---