Invitation Request Presidential Candidates to Appear as Related Parties

· 4 minutes read

JAKARTA, KOMPAS – The Constitutional Court has been asked to invite as related parties the two candidate pairs for the 2019 presidential election to a judicial review hearing on the National Education Law. This is so that the presidential and vice presidential candidates can express their views on children’s education before the court.

"So far, the debate has only occurred in political rhetoric, such as [the terms] ‘Boyolali’ and ‘Genderuwo’, which are less appealing in educating voters. The petitioner wants to shift the debate to the political sphere of the constitution. The debate must be more meaningful because it [involves] the potential president. So I will ask the presidential candidates to be invited to the Constitutional Court through the petition that I have submitted for review," lawyer Irman Putrasidin said on Tuesday in Jakarta.

Irman submitted on Nov. 12 a request for judicial review on Article 34, Paragraph (2) of Law No. 20 Year 2003 on the national education system. Article 34, Paragraph (2) reads: "The government and the regional administrations guarantee free compulsory education, at least for the basic education level."

The petition requests the Constitutional Court to declare that the term “basic education level” contradicted the constitution if it did not include senior high school, vocational high school and their equivalents.

At present, the basic education level as mandated by the law only goes up to junior high school (SMP). Therefore, national education is free only up to nine years of education to the junior high school level for schoolchildren.

Irman said that completing senior high school was now a basic requirement for state officials and most jobs. Therefore, limiting “basic education level” only up to junior high school meant that the state was neglecting the constitutional right of children to receive basic education up to a level that had become the standard measure for the competence required of decent jobs as well as state and public office.

Registry number

Irman\'s request to invite the candidates has not been given a registry number for the Constitutional Court justice to review the request for approval. Whether or not the two presidential candidate pairs will respond to the invitation also depends on their party backers. Being invited as “related parties” to a judicial review hearing at the Constitutional Court does not mean that they have to follow the court\'s instructions, and an individual can apply voluntarily to appear as a related party if they have an interest in the request for judicial review submitted to the court.

Constitutional Court spokesman and justice I Dewa Gede Palguna said that the court could not comment on the request to invite the two pairs of vice presidential and vice presidential candidates as related parties, because the request had not been registered.

Deputy chairman Arsul Sani of the Joko Widodo-Ma\'ruf Amin National Campaign Team said he respected the request for judicial review. However, he said that inviting Jokowi-Ma\'ruf to the Constitutional Court to express their views as related parties was inappropriate, because the pair had submitted their vision and mission to the General Elections Commission. Their programs should instead be explained to the public, not at court. "If, for example, the Constitutional Court decides in the end that basic education covers 12 years, of course our candidates will support [the decision]," he said.

Meanwhile, the Prabowo Subianto-Sandiaga Uno camp has not stated their stance on the matter because they were not aware about the request for judicial review. "If we receive an invitation, we will certainly consider it, because education is one of the main concerns of Pak Prabowo and Bang Sandi. It will concern the two as long as [the matter] relates to education, health and the economy," said Prabowo-Sandiaga National Campaign Team spokesperson Andre Rosiade.

State law observer Refly Harun viewed the effort to invite the presidential candidates to the judicial review of the National Education Law was a solution to change the direction and content of the campaigns, which appeared to be insubstantial.

Refly said that expressing the candidates’ program and views on a policy at court could be considered a part of their campaign, because they would appear as ordinary citizens who had the right to present an argument and their views on a policy before the court. (REK)

Editor:

the constitutional court