|
|
Three witnesses presented by the Petitioner being taken oath by the Board of Justices before giving their testimonials in a session for the review of Act on Education Legal Entity and Act on National Education System, Tuesday (8/12), at The Court Plenary Room. (Doc. CCRI/Prana Patrayoga Adiputra)
|
|
Jakarta - MKOnline, Alongside with the review of Act Number 9 of 2009 about Education Legal Entity (BHP) or for short called Act on BHP, The Constitutional Court (The Court) also held a session for the review of Act Number 20 of 2003 about National Education System (Act on Sisdiknas), Tuesday (8/12), at The Court Plenary Room.
The case registered with Number 136/PUU-VII/2009 was scheduled to hear information from the Government, Witnesses and Experts from both the Petitioner and the Government.
For this session, the Government presented two experts, Anggani Soedono and Nurdiana Dwi. Anggani in her testimonial explained that children aged 0 – 6 years had special characteristics therefore the learning process did not have to be conducted in a structured way. "That age period can not be put in a structured education process. Thus, the Government set a standard for Early-Age Education whether it is formal, informal or non-formal as mentioned in Article 28 of Act on Sisdiknas," she pointed out.
According to Anggani, whatever the form of the institution was - whether formal, informal, or non-formal - had to put forward the learning process through playing because the process of playing was one of the way for children to develop and explore themselves. "Reading or writing activities are a part of children development process and not something compelled as the Petitioner argued," she added.
Meanwhile, Nurdiana Dini emphasized on the importance of having similar idea for the term formal, informal, and non-formal. “Let us avoid the segmentation for early aged children due to the existence of term formal, informal, and non-formal," she reminded.
For her, what should be the focus was the implementation of the early-aged education. “The problem does not lie on the category of the education, but in the educational service for the children from the educators," she said.
In the file, the Petitioners wished to review Article 9, Article 28 paragraph (2), paragraph (3), paragraph (6), Article 42 paragraph (2), and Article 51 paragraph (1) Act on Sisdiknas in relation to the existing concept for early-aged education which was considered to violate Article 28D paragraph (1), Article 28H paragraph (2) and paragraph (3), Article 31 paragraph (2), Article 34 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. The Petitioner argued that within Article 9 of Act on Sisdiknas should have mentioned the limitation for people’s obligation to provide resources in holding the education. Meanwhile the other articles related to formal, informal, and non-formal education were said to violate the Constitution for not providing legal certainty. The Government and their experts were scheduled to give their information in the next session. (Lulu A./YDJ tr.)
|