The Constitutional Court Rejects The Lawsuit For Material Testing Regarding The Prohibition Of The PPDB Zoning System

ILLUSTRATION BETWEEN

JAKARTA - The Constitutional Court rejected the lawsuit for judicial review of Article 11 paragraph (1) of Law Number 20 of 2003 concerning the National Education System (Sisdiknas) related to the prohibition of the zoning admission system for new students (PPDB).

"The verdict, trial, reject the petitioner's petition in its entirety," said Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court (MK) Anwar Usman in reading the verdict reported by ANTARA, Wednesday, September 27.

After considering the petitioner's petition, the court concluded that the petitioner's petition had no legal basis.

"The court concluded: the court has the authority to try the petitioner's petition; the applicant has the legal standing to apply for the a quo; the principal petition for the applicant is not legally reasonable in its entirety," said Anwar.

Case Number 85/PUU-XXI/2023 was submitted by a private employee named Leonardo Siahaan. He sued Article 11 paragraph (1) of Law 20/2003 which reads The Government and Regional Governments Must Provide Services and Ease, As well as Guarantee the Implementation of Education That STIPULATEs for Every Citizen Without Discrimination.

In its petitum, the petitioner asked the court to state that the article was conditionally contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (UUD 1945).

The petitioner requested that the article be added with the 'Prohibition of Acceptance of Students Through Zoning Systems or Other Policies Causing Difficulties for Students to Get Education'.

Applicants argue that the zoning system is damaging the PPDB system with an achievement system that has been built so far. In addition, according to the petitioner, the zoning system kills the achievement motivation because students are not challenged to the spirit of learning.

The petitioner also argued that the zoning system fosters wetland for illegal practices or other fraudulent acts. According to the petitioner, PPDB should be carried out through a non-zoned system by prioritizing achievement, so as to encourage the acceleration of the quality of education and be relevant to the policy of the concept of independent learning.

Constitutional judge Manahan MP Sitompul explained that the zoning system is one way to use regional restrictions that are associated with school capacity. The zoning system, he said, is only a method in the implementation of the PPDB system.

Manahan also said that the provisions in the norms of Article 11 paragraph (1) of Law 20/2003 which were sued by the applicant had ordered the government and local governments to provide quality education for every citizen without discrimination.

"Thus, according to the Court of norms Article 11 paragraph (1) of Law 20/2003, it is in line with the spirit and objectives of the state as stated in the Fourth Alinea of the Preamble to the 1945 Constitution," said Manahan.

Meanwhile, regarding the petitioner's argument that said the zoning PPDB system caused discriminatory treatment, the court argued that it was not a matter of norm constitutionality.

"In addition, if what the applicant is questioning is true, it is a matter of implementing norms that are not related to the constitutionality of the norms of Article 11 paragraph (1) of Law 20/2003," said Manahan.

There is a different opinion on the decision. Constitutional judge M. Guntur Hamzah believes that the petitioner's petition should not be rejected, but is declared unacceptable because it does not have legal standing.