Artikel Populer

Batal Demi Hukum; Ketidakabsahan Perjanjian Kerja yang Bertentangan dengan UU Ketenagakerjaan dan UU Cipta Kerja

By: Hanter Oriko Siregar -
Image
JAKARTA, H OS LAW FIRM — Dalam rezim hukum ketenagakerjaan Indonesia, tidak ada satu pun perusahaan yang dapat berlindung di balik dalih “kesepakatan para pihak” apabila isi perjanjian kerja bertentangan dengan Peraturan Perundang-Undangan. Prinsip ini bukan sekadar asas moral hubungan industrial, melainkan norma imperatif yang secara tegas diperintahkan oleh Undang-Undang dan bersifat memaksa ( dwingendrecht ). Dengan demikian, setiap Perjanjian Kerja yang menyimpangi hak normatif pekerja pada hakikatnya adalah cacat hukum dan kehilangan legitimasi yuridisnya sejak awal. Dasar hukumnya sangat jelas dalam Pasal 52 ayat (1) huruf d Undang-Undang Nomor 13 Tahun 2003 tentang Ketenagakerjaan sebagaimana telah diubah dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 6 Tahun 2023 tentang Penetapan Perppu Cipta Kerja menjadi Undang-Undang, menentukan bahwa: “Perjanjian kerja dibuat atas dasar pekerjaan yang diperjanjikan tidak bertentangan dengan ketertiban umum, kesusilaan, dan Peraturan Perundang-Undangan yan...
Post a Comment

Reevaluating Educational Requirements for National Leadership: Is a High School Diploma Still Sufficient to Become President?

By: Hanter Oriko Siregar -

 

JAKARTA, H OS LAW FIRM – The Constitutional Court (MK) is once again being tested in its role as guardian of the Constitution through a petition challenging the minimum educational requirements for public office. This petition has been officially registered under Case Number 154/PU U-XXIII/2025. The petitioner questions whether the current requirements, which stipulate a high school diploma (or equivalent) for presidential, vice presidential, legislative, and regional leadership candidates, are still relevant and in line with the spirit of the Constitution.

Permohonan 154/PUU-XXIII/2025

This petition is rooted in the belief that educational requirements should not be merely administrative formalities but should reflect the principles of a modern rule-of-law state: rationality, proportionality, meritocracy, and constitutional accountability. The Petitioner also highlights the importance of intellectual capacity among public officials as essential for tackling the nation’s future challenges.

The Constitutional Court and the Interpretation of Constitutional Justice

The Constitutional Court is not merely a passive institution tasked with normative legal review. In several of its landmark decisions, the Court has demonstrated a progressive and active role, prioritizing substantive justice over rigid legal formalism. Through decisions such as No. 49/PUU-VIII/2010 and No. 147/PUU-VII/2009, the Court has shown its capacity to establish new legal norms when existing provisions are found to be substantively unjust.

In this context, the Court’s role is critical in determining whether the current high school education requirement for national leadership is still constitutionally appropriate. This becomes even more relevant when such provisions are considered vague, subject to multiple interpretations, or potentially in conflict with principles of justice and the right to quality governance as stipulated in Articles 28D and 28G of the 1945 Constitution.

Between Democracy, Elitism, and the People's Right to Quality Leadership

Normatively, the minimum education requirement is outlined in Article 169 letter r, Article 182 letter e, and Article 240 paragraph (1) letter e of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections, as well as Article 7 paragraph (2) letter c of Law No. 10 of 2016. These provisions state that candidates for public office must have at least a high school education or its equivalent.

However, the Petitioner questions whether this standard remains suitable for strategic leadership positions, especially the presidency. In an era marked by global complexity, shifting geopolitical dynamics, and mounting economic and climate challenges, leadership intelligence and capacity are non-negotiable. Within a meritocratic framework, higher education should not be seen as elitist, but rather as a safeguard for policy quality and national direction.

This raises a critical question: Should democratic systems provide equal opportunity regardless of technocratic competence? Or does democracy still require rational limitations to ensure the quality of its outcomes?

The Constitutional Court as a Balancer in a Constitutional Democracy

Although this petition may appear technical and administrative on the surface, it fundamentally represents an exercise of citizen-led constitutional control over the quality of governance. Criticism of laws—particularly those perceived to reflect elite interests—is legitimate in a democratic society. The Petitioner argues that the legislative process surrounding the Election Law has often ignored the aspirations of broader society, especially marginalized groups.

Unfortunately, such criticism is frequently dismissed as divisive or threatening to national unity. In reality, this is where the Constitutional Court plays an essential role—as a channel for correction and balance against political domination, and as a reaffirmation of the rule of law and the protection of constitutional rights.

As emphasized by Jimly Asshiddiqie, the Constitutional Court serves as the guardian of the Constitution, the final interpreter of the Constitution, the guardian of democratization, and the protector of human rights. Arief Hidayat further adds an important role: the Court as the guardian of national ideology.

Reformulating Requirements: Necessity or Ambition?

Demanding that a president or public official possess a higher level of education is not merely an intellectual ambition. In today’s realities of globalization and digital transformation, leadership capacity is a crucial factor in addressing multidimensional crises, from climate change to geopolitical conflict. Thus, the fundamental question arises: Is it unreasonable for the people to demand higher educational standards from those entrusted with national policymaking?

On the other hand, any reformulation of educational requirements must be carried out with caution to avoid violating the political rights of citizens. Democracy must remain inclusive, but inclusion must not come at the cost of leadership quality and accountability.

Conclusion: Democracy Requires Quality, Not Just Quantity

This constitutional challenge is not merely about legal provisions—it is a reflection of the broader vision for the future of Indonesian democracy. In a democratic rule-of-law state, the people's desire to be led by competent and capable leaders is a constitutional right. The Constitutional Court, as the foremost guardian of the Constitution, bears a significant responsibility in determining whether the current legal norms still align with evolving constitutional expectations.

In the end, the central question remains: Is a high school diploma still enough to lead a nation as vast and complex as Indonesia?

Baca juga: menuntut syarat pendidikan minimal S-1 bagi Capres, Sawapres, Cakada, dan Anggota Dewan



Location: Jakarta, Indonesia. Indonesia

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Batas Kebebasan Berpendapat dan Risiko Kriminalisasi Ekspresi dalam Demokrasi

By: Hanter Oriko Siregar -
Image
JAKARTA, H OS LAW FIRM — Kasus pelaporan terhadap akademisi hukum Feri Amsari atas dugaan penyebaran berita bohong kembali menempatkan publik pada persoalan klasik dalam demokrasi, di mana batas antara kebebasan berpendapat dan potensi kriminalisasi ekspresi. Peristiwa ini tidak semata-mata berkaitan dengan benar atau salahnya suatu pernyataan, melainkan menyentuh aspek yang lebih mendasar, yaitu bagaimana negara melalui aparat penegak hukum—memperlakukan kritik, analisis, dan pandangan publik yang mungkin tidak sejalan dengan narasi tertentu. Oleh karena itu, kasus ini perlu dilihat secara lebih luas, bukan hanya sebagai persoalan hukum, tetapi juga sebagai cerminan dinamika kebebasan sipil di Indonesia. Kebebasan berpendapat merupakan salah satu pilar utama dalam sistem demokrasi. Hak ini tidak hanya melindungi ekspresi yang populer atau disetujui banyak orang, tetapi juga pendapat yang kontroversial, kritis, bahkan yang dianggap keliru. Dalam banyak situasi, justru dari perde...
Read more

Menakar Batas Kerugian Keuangan Negara dalam Perspektif Hukum Administrasi

By: Hanter Oriko Siregar -
Image
JAKARTA, H OS LAW FIRM — Dalam pertimbangannya, Mahkamah menyatakan bahwa tujuan utama pembentukan Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2014 tentang Administrasi Pemerintahan (UU 30/2014) adalah untuk meningkatkan kualitas penyelenggaraan pemerintahan. Hal ini dilakukan dengan memastikan bahwa setiap badan dan/atau pejabat pemerintahan dalam menggunakan kewenangannya selalu berpedoman pada Asas-Asas Umum Pemerintahan yang Baik (AUPB) serta ketentuan peraturan-undangan yang berlaku. UU 30/2014 juga berfungsi sebagai instrumen perlindungan hukum, baik bagi masyarakat maupun bagi pejabat pemerintahan, sekaligus menjadi landasan normatif dalam pengambilan keputusan dan tindakan administratif. Baca Juga :  Batas Kebebasan Berpendapat dan Risiko Kriminalisasi Ekspresi dalam Demokrasi Lebih jauh lagi, UU 30/2014 memperkenalkan pendekatan yang berbeda dalam menangani kesalahan administratif, khususnya yang berpotensi menimbulkan kerugian keuangan negara. Undang-undang ini tidak serta-merta m...
Read more

Pengakuan Bersalah dalam KUHAP 2025: Inovasi Prosedural atau Ancaman terhadap Due Process of Law

By: Hanter Oriko Siregar -
Image
JAKARTA, H OS LAW FIRM - Pengaturan mengenai “Pengakuan Bersalah” dalam Pasal 78, UU No. 20 tahun 2025 Tentang KUHAP baru merupakan salah satu inovasi penting dalam sistem peradilan pidana Indonesia yang patut dicermati secara kritis. Ketentuan ini pada dasarnya memperkenalkan mekanisme yang secara konseptual serupa dengan plea bargaining dalam sistem hukum Anglo-Saxon , di mana Terdakwa dapat mengakui kesalahannya dengan konsekuensi adanya penyederhanaan proses peradilan dan kemungkinan pengurangan hukuman. Dalam konteks pembaruan hukum acara pidana, langkah ini dapat dipahami sebagai upaya untuk menjawab persoalan klasik berupa penumpukan perkara, lamanya proses peradilan, serta tingginya biaya yang harus ditanggung oleh para pihak. Secara normatif, Pasal 78 KUHAP Baru telah mengatur sejumlah prasyarat yang cukup ketat. Pengakuan bersalah hanya dapat diterapkan terhadap Terdakwa yang baru pertama kali melakukan tindak pidana, terhadap tindak pidana dengan ancaman pidana yang rela...
Read more