The Constitutional Court Rejects State Material Tests To Finance Education To Lecture

Chairman of the Constitutional Court (MK) Suhartoyo (central) together with Deputy Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Saldi Isra (left) and Enny Nurbaningsih (right)/ANTARA PHOTO/Rivan Awal Lingga/sgd

JAKARTA - The Constitutional Court rejected the application for judicial review of Law Number 20 of 2003 concerning the National Education System (UU Sisdiknas) which asked the state to ensure the availability of financing at all levels of education, including up to college or college levels.

"Reject the petitioners in its entirety," said Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Suhartoyo reading the verdict Number 111/PUU-XXIII/2025 reported by ANTARA, Thursday, August 14.

The application was submitted by the Indonesian Student League for Democracy (LMID) along with four other applicants, namely a mother named Sri Rahmawati, a student named Sentia Dewi and Danang Putra Nuryana, and a student named Naufal Aksa Al Anra.

The petitioners test the constitutionality of the norms of Article 11 paragraph (2) of the complete Sisdiknas Law, which reads, "The government and local governments are obliged to guarantee the availability of funds for the implementation of education for every citizen aged seven to fifteen years."

They questioned the phrase which is seven to fifteen years old.

According to the petitioners, the regulation limits the guarantee of education financing only at the basic level, so it is feared that it will prevent citizens from developing themselves and improving their quality of life through education to college levels.

However, according to the Court, the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (UUD NRI) has actually provided a different level of basic education urgency with other levels of education.

Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat said the obligation for the state to finance basic education explicitly was stated by Article 31 paragraph of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.

Thus, special emphasis on basic education is a constitutional mandate that cannot be interpreted.

"Therefore, according to the Court, it is inappropriate to construct the meaning of government guarantees for the availability of funds/budgets for the implementation of all levels of education at the norms of Article 11 paragraph (2) of Law 20/2003 (UU Sisdiknas)," said Arief reading out legal considerations.

The Court considered that although all levels of education were objects that were the responsibility of the state in the national education system, the meaning requested by the applicants could actually obscure the state's obligation to prioritize basic education.

Moreover, in the previous decision, namely Number 3/PUU-XXII/2024, the Constitutional Court is indicated that the education budget allocation is prioritized to seek the implementation of basic education that does not charge or is free.

Based on these considerations, the Constitutional Court concluded that there were no constitutionality issues in the norms of Article 11 paragraph (2) of the National Education System Law so that the argument proposed by LMID along with the four other applicants was not legally justified.