Koran Sindo, page 5
The Constitutional Court (MK) was asked to reinterpret the Law (UU) on Teachers and Lecturers and the Child Protection Law. These interpretations are necessary so that teachers are not easily penalized when they wish to discipline students.
This reinterpretation request was made by two teachers, Dasrul and Hanna Novianti. Through their attorney, Muhammad Asrun, these two teachers asked the Constitutional Court to examine Article 9 paragraph (1a) and Article 54 paragraph (1) of the Child Protection Law and Article 39 Paragraph (3) of the Teacher and Lecturer Law.
According to Asrun, this interpretation by the Constitutional Court is necessary because teachers are easily thrown in jail when performing their professional duty to discipline their students. He said that in practice a teacher who pinches or shortens a student’s hair could very easily end up in jail. Teachers who impose discipline should not be subject to criminal or civil sanctions.
Although there is already a legal guarantee at the Supreme Court (MA) level in 2016 that states teachers cannot be imposed criminal sanctions when carrying out their profession, this MA jurisprudence is not real on the ground. According to Asrun, the presence of the article in the Child Protection Law becomes absolute to punish teachers because the article mentions that there should be no verbal and physical violence against children.
Actually, as a professional, teachers should be summoned first in the code of ethics proceedings to clarify the issue/problem and not directly thrown into prison. According to Asrun currently teachers are vulnerable to criminalization because they have no protection.