The Constitutional Court holds a ruling hearing in the judicial review of Law No. 20 of 2003 on the National Education System, Wednesday (29/04), at the Court’s courtroom. Photo: MKRI Public Relations/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA, MKRI – The Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi/MK) has declared inadmissible a petition challenging provisions of Law No. 20 of 2003 on the National Education System (Sisdiknas Law), citing the petitioner’s failure to clearly establish legal standing.

The petition, filed by Jangkung Sido Sentosa, sought judicial review of Article 26 paragraph (3) and Article 35 paragraph (1) of the law. However, the Court found the petitioner’s legal status to be inconsistently and ambiguously presented.

“At one point, the petitioner describes his legal standing as the head of a Community Learning Center (PKBM) Aji Sakti Migunani, while elsewhere he claims standing as an educator/tutor whose access to the teacher professional education program (PPG) is obstructed,” Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra said while reading Decision No. 98/PUU-XXIV/2026.

The petitioner also asserted that the application was submitted both in a personal capacity and on behalf of the PKBM institution, further complicating the Court’s assessment of the proper legal subject bringing the case.

“This qualification should not be presented simultaneously or interchangeably, as it creates ambiguity in understanding the intent of the petition, particularly regarding the legal subject filing the application,” Saldi added.

The Court further noted that if the petitioner intended to act on behalf of PKBM Aji Sakti Migunani as a legal entity, he should have demonstrated proper authority to represent the institution. However, the evidence submitted including the foundation’s deed of establishment—indicated that legal representation lies with the organization’s management board, consisting of the chairperson, secretary, and treasurer.

“Accordingly, representation of the PKBM as a legal entity should be carried out by its management collectively, not by the petitioner alone,” Saldi explained.

Also read:
Petitioner Requests Equal Status for Formal-Nonformal Education
Revises Application, Petitioner Alters Challenged Provisions in National Education System Law

Previously, the Petitioner stated that the application aims to test the conformity of the Sisdiknas Law with the Constitution, particularly in the implementation of non-formal education. He argued that there is no clear distinction between formal and non-formal education, despite both being subject to the same national standards.

The petition highlights the absence of clear benchmarks distinguishing the two systems, while also criticizing the lack of firm obligations on the state to provide proportional equivalency mechanisms, especially for adult learners from lower socio-economic backgrounds.

According to the Petitioner, such conditions risk creating unequal treatment and contravene the constitutional principles of equality before the law and fair legal protection. He further argued that the application of National Education Standards under Article 35 paragraph (1) fails to account for the unique characteristics of non-formal education.

“The standards should ensure quality, not become barriers to access, particularly for adult learners,” he asserted, warning that rigid implementation could undermine constitutional principles of accessibility and justice.

The Petitioner also emphasized that non-formal education differs fundamentally from formal education. In practice, equivalency education programs are often treated merely as extensions of the formal system in terms of structure and process, despite the fact that participants are typically working adults with life experiences beyond traditional school age.

 

Full decision available at: Decision No. 98/PUU-XXIV/2026 (in Indonesian).

 

Author               : Utami Argawati
Editor                 : Lulu Anjarsari P.

Public Relations: Adriana A.Y.
Translator          : SO

 

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.

---