Sistem pendidikan nasional yang diatur dalam UU Sisdiknas harus mampu meningkatkan keimanan dan ketakwaan, mencerdaskan kehidupan bangsa, dan memajukan ilmu pengetahuan dan teknologi yang berorientasi 4 (empat) hal, yaitu menjunjung tinggi nilai-nilai agama, memelihara persatuan bangsa, memajukan peradaban, dan memajukan kesejahteraan umat manusia. Salah satu tujuan Negara Kesatuan Republik Indonesia ialah mencerdaskan kehidupan bangsa. Hal ini berdampak bahwa kewajiban negara terhadap warga negara dalam bidang pendidikan mempunyai dasar yang fundamental. Hal ini sebagaimana tertuang dalam Pembukaan UUD 1945. Adanya tujuan nasional tersebut mengakibatkan bahwa kewajiban mencerdaskan bangsa melekat pada eksistensi negara, sehingga negara memprioritaskan anggaran pendidikan minimal 20% dari APBN dan APBD. Bahkan seharusnya untuk pendidikan dasar, baik negeri maupun swasta, harus cuma-cuma, karena menjadi tanggung jawab negara yang telah mewajibkan setiap warga negara mengikuti pendidikan dasar. Era reformasi telah memberikan ruang yang cukup besar bagi perumusan kebijakan-kebijakan pendidikan baru yang bersifat reformatif dan revolusioner. Bentuk kurikulum menjadi berbasis kompetensi. Begitu pula bentuk pelaksanaan pendidikan berubah dari sentralistik (orde lama) menjadi desentralistik. Anggaran pendidikan ditetapkan sesuai dengan UUD 1945 yaitu 20% (dua puluh Persen) dari APBN dan APBD, sehingga banyak terjadi reformasi di dunia pendidikan.
Constitutional Court Decision No. 5/PUU-X/2012 is very important and interesting to be studied because due to its implications and implementation. Ministry of Education and Culture as the addressat of the decision make transitional policy regarding on how to eliminate the policy concenring International Standard School/ International-Standard School Pilot Project (SBI/RSBI). In fact, transitional policy is not addressed and does not have a legal basis in the implementation of the decision. There is a conflict between the normative provisions that Constitutional Court Decision are binding since pronounced in an open session for the public with the certainty of cross-state agency collaborative cooperation to implement the Court Decision. Therefore, there’s a need to investigate this Decision at the practical leve on how the decision is implemented. This research is doctrinal in which the object of the research is laws and regulations and other legal materials, in this case, the Constitutional Court Decision No. 5/PUU-X/2012. In addition, field studies are also conducted by way of searching mass media news which is important to be done in order to know the response of the public on how to implement the Constitutional Court Decision No. 5/PUU-X/2012. The results showed that (1) the implications of the Constitutional Court Decision No. 5/PUU-X/2012 is that it eliminates the legal basis of RSBI policy. Consequently , the implementation of SBI/ RSBI should be stopped because it has lost its legal basis since the judgment is pronounced. In addition, the Government through the Ministry of Education and Culture, shall implement the decision, including to repeal or revise the technical regulations that become legal framework of RSBI, (2) The implementation of the Constitutional Court Decision No. 5/PUU-X/2012 can be seen in two categories, namely: (a) spontaneous implementation, which is implementation by some education authorities and the schools themselves by removing the attributes of SBI/RSBI shortly after the Constitutional Court’s decision was pronounced, without waiting for further instruction by Ministry of Education and Culture, and (b) a structured implementation through the Ministry of Education and Culture by issuing Circular of Minister of Education and Culture No. 017/MPK/SE/2013 about RSBI Transition Policy. Although this policy is contrary to normative-imperative provisions, the measure taken by the Ministry of Education and Culture to establish a transition policy is the most probable step taken in order that the Constitutional Court Decision No. 5/PUU-X/2012 can be implemented as it should be.
Mahkamah Konstitusi sebagai lembaga yang lahir berdasarkan amandemen UUD 1945 memiliki fungsi sebagai lembaga terakhir penafsir konstitusi atau yang sering disebut sebagai the final interpreter of constitution. Fungsi ini biasanya dilaksanakan Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam kewenangannya menguji undang-undang terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar 1945. Terhadap frasa, ayat, pasal atau undang-undang yang dianggap tidak jelas atau multitafsir telah dimohonkan untuk diberikan penafsiran sesuai dengan konstitusi. Pun demikian dengan frasa keadilan sosial yang terdapat dalam beberapa undang-undang yang telah diputus Mahkamah Konstitusi. Terdapat 16 (enam belas) putusan dengan 10 (sepuluh) isu konstitusional dalam pengujian undang-undang selama periode 2003–2010 dalam bidang ketenagalistrikan, minyak dan gas bumi, ketenagakerjaan, sistem jaminan sosial nasional, sumber daya air, penanaman modal, pajak penghasilan, pengelolaan wilayah pesisir dan pulau-pulau kecil dan pertambangan mineral dan batu bara. Dari 10 isu konstitusional tersebut, dalam pertimbangan hukumnya Mahkamah lebih sering memilih menggunakan interpretasi gramatikal, interpretasi historis, interpretasi teleologis atau sosilologis dan interpretasi komparatif atau perbandingan. Mahkamah Konstitusi menyatakan bahwa keadilan sosial dalam Pembukaan UUD 1945, mengandung makna “penguasaan negara” artinya negara harus menjadikan penguasaan terhadap cabang produksi yang dikuasainya itu memenuhi tiga hal yang menjadi kepentingan masyarakat: ketersediaan yang cukup, distribusi yang merata, dan terjangkaunya harga bagi orang banyak. Dengan dikuasai oleh negara, keadilan sosial diartikan mencakup makna penguasaan oleh negara dalam luas yang bersumber dan diturunkan dari konsepsi kedaulatan rakyat Indonesia atas segala sumber kekayaan “bumi, air dan kekayaan alam yang terkandung di dalamnya”, termasuk pula di dalamnya pengertian kepemilikan publik oleh kolektivitas rakyat atas sumber-sumber kekayaan dimaksud. The Constitutional Court as an institution born based on the amendments to the 1945 Constitution has a function as the final interpreter of constitution. This function is usually carried out by the Constitutional Court in its authority to examine laws against the 1945 Constitution. Regarding phrases, verses, articles or laws that are deemed unclear or multiple interpretations have been requested to be interpreted in accordance with the constitution. Even so with the phrase social justice contained in several laws that have been decided by the Constitutional Court. There are 16 (sixteen) decisions with 10 (ten) constitutional issues in judicial review during the 2003–2010 period in the fields of electricity, oil and gas, employment, national social security systems, water resources, investment, tax income, management of coastal areas and small islands and mining of minerals and coal. Of the 10 constitutional issues, in its legal considerations the Court often chooses to use grammatical interpretations, historical interpretations, teleological or sosilological interpretations and comparative or comparative interpretations. The Constitutional Court stated that social justice in the Preamble of the 1945 Constitution, contained the meaning of "state control" means that the state must make control of the controlled branch of production fulfill three things that are in the public interest: adequate availability, equitable distribution and affordability. By being controlled by the state, social justice is interpreted to include the meaning of control by the state in a broad sense that is derived and derived from the conception of the sovereignty of the people of Indonesia over all sources of wealth "earth, water and natural wealth contained in it" the people for the intended sources of wealth.
Tulisan ini membahas mengenai penyelesaian sengketa kewenangan antarlembaga negara oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi. Dalam penyelesaian sengketa kewenangan konstitusional antar lembaga negara itu terdapat 2 (dua) hal penting yang harus dieksplorasi yaitu soal konsepsi lembaga negara dan kewenangan konstitusional. Guna memahami lembaga negara terlebih dahulu harus melakukan pengelompokan berdasarkan landasan yuridis pembentukannya. Berdasarkan pembentukannya lembaga negara dapat dikelompokkan menjadi 3 (tiga), yaitu lembaga negara yang dibentuk berdasarkan Keppres, UU, dan UUD. Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam Putusan Nomor 004/SKLN-IV/2006 tanggal 12 Juli 2006 telah merumuskan kata “lembaga negara yang kewenangannya diberikan oleh Undang-Undang Dasar” dalam Pasal 24C ayat (1) UUD 1945 dengan menggunakan penafsiran gramatika (grammatische interpretatie). Menurut Mahkamah Konstitusi, dalam menentukan subjectum litis atau objectum litis perkara sengketa kewenangan lembaga negara yang kewenangannya diberikan UUD 1945 maka ditentukan terlebih dahulu kewenangan-kewenangan yang diberikan dalam Undang-Undang Dasar dan baru kemudian kepada lembaga apa kewenangan-kewenangan tersebut diberikan.This article is about settlement disputes between authorities of state institutions by the Constitutional Court of Indonesia. In the resolution of disputes between the state institutions there are 2 (two) important things that must be explored, the conception of constitutional state institutions and authority. To understand state institutions once must be done is grouping by the juridical of its formation. Based on its juridical formation state institutions can be grouped into 3 (three), that is institutions formed based on the presidential decree, law, and the constitution. The verdict of The Constitutional Court No 004/SKLN-IV/2006 dated 12 July 2006, Constitutional Court has formulated “state institutions under the authority granted by the constitution” regarding Article 24C Paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution by using grammatical interpretation (grammatische interpretatie). According to The Constitutional Court, in order to determine subjectum litis or objectum litis in settlement disputes of authorities of state institutions cases that authority granted by 1945 Constitution, ones must be considered is the existence of certain authorities in the Constitution and then to which institutions those authorities are given.
Why Constitutional Court verdict Number. 92/PUU-X/2012 attractive to serve as an object of research? The main reason is, there is a problem that is visible on the implementation of the Decision. The problem shown in fact that can be observed after the verdict was pronounced in the plenary session of the Constitutional Court. Up to almost 1 (one) year later, since pronounced in the plenary session, the Constitutional Court also considered yet implemented. This research seeks to express the fact that covers the implementation of Constitutional Court Decision No. 92/PUU-X/2012. Therefore, although more as a normative-doctrinal research and/or prescriptive with the focus of study that leads to the question of “how it should act”, this research is very likely propose another style that touches the issue of “what happened” and “why it happened”. The purpose of the implementation of this study was to determine and explain about the implementation of the Constitutional Court Number 92/PUU-X/2012, including to identify and explain the obstacles and difficulties in the implementation of the Constitutional Court Decision No. 92/PUU-X/2012, and find out and explain the legal politics legislation following the Ruling of the Constitutional Court Number 92/PUU-X/2012. In this theoretical framework introduced some basic concepts that are key aspects to strengthen the argument in this study. In this regard, this study uses a few basic concepts, namely: (1) the law not only as a rule (rule) but also behavior (behavior), (2) awareness and compliance with the law; (3) The strength of binding court decisions, and (4) Due to legal and implementation models court decision.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.