Chief Justice Suhartoyo chairing the third hearing for the judicial review of the National Education System Law and the Higher Education Law, Monday (7/14/2025). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The president requested a delay of the judicial review hearing of Article 60 paragraph (2) of Law No. 20 of 2003 on the National Education System (Sisdiknas Law) and Article 55 paragraphs (5), (6), (7), and (8) of Law No. 12 of 2012 on Higher Education (Dikti Law). The third hearing on Monday, July 14, 2025 was supposed to present the House of Representatives (DPR) and the President’s testimonies for case No. 60/PUU-XXIII/2025.

“We ask that the hearing for the president’s testimony be delayed for 14 days since today, as the Government still needs time to coordinate the preparations of materials related to said petition,” said Secretary-General of the Ministry of Higher Education, Science, and Technology Togar M. Simatupang in the plenary courtroom.

Chief Justice Suhartoyo then announced that the hearing was delayed and will commence on Wednesday, July 23, 2025 with the same agenda, given that the House was also absent today.

“We have scheduled [the next hearing]. Do not ask for more delay, as this case has been receiving quite the attention from the public,” he said.

Also read:

Cooperation Body of Law Deans Challenges Provisions on Accreditation

Council of Law Deans Revises Petition on National Education System Law

The petition was filed by the cooperation body of law deans of public universities in Indonesia, wight lecturers, and three university students. They question the university accreditation program and education units by two entities: the Government and the authorized independent institutions. With two institutions having similar duties but different objects, there is a risk of varying standards, methods, and assessment results that could confuse accredited universities and study programs. This could decrease the effectiveness of the higher education quality assurance system as a whole.

Article 60 paragraph (2) of the Sisdiknas Law reads, “Accreditation of a program and education unit shall be the responsibility of the Government and/or independent authorities as a form of public accountability.” Meanwhile, Article 55 paragraphs (5), (6), (7), and (8) reads, “(5) The accreditation of Study Programs as public accountability shall be conducted by an independent accreditation agency. (6) The independent accreditation agency as referred to in paragraph (5) shall be established by the Government or by the Community and recognized by the Government on the recommendation of the National Agency for Accreditation of Tertiary Education Institutions. (7) The independent accreditation agency as referred to in paragraph (6) shall be established on the basis of a scientific cluster and/or a scientific branch or geographically. (8) Further provisions on accreditation as referred to in paragraph (1), National Agency for Accreditation of Tertiary Education Institutions as referred to in paragraph (4), and independent accreditation agency as referred to in paragraph (5) shall be set out in a Ministerial Regulation.”

The Petitioners argued that the articles being petitioned are against the fourth paragraph of the Preamble to the 1945 Constitution, which reads, “And then to form a Government of the State of Indonesia that protects all Indonesian people and the entire land of Indonesia and to develop the welfare of the people, the life of the nation…” They also use Article 31 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution to review the articles against.

At the preliminary hearing on Thursday, May 15, the Petitioners explained that the independent accreditation bodies show the inefficiency, ineffectiveness, and disharmony of accreditation institutions because two institutions have similar main tasks and functions, only differentiated by the object of accreditation, i.e. BAN-PT (National Accreditation Board for Higher Education) for accreditation of universities, and independent accreditation institutions for study programs.

In addition to the loss of government authority to directly assess the quality of higher education, independent accreditation bodies also could potentially create overlapping authority and uncertainty in the higher education accreditation system in Indonesia. They can also cause problems in terms of independence and accountability.

Accreditation assessments by independent accreditation bodies managed by the community could potentially lead to transactional practices. This can result in the assessment process not being objective, or using indicators that are not aligned with the National Higher Education Standards (SN-Dikti), even though compliance with these standards is mandatory.

The Petitioners also argued that if independent accreditation bodies have such authority, there is a question whether the Government would have a role and responsibility in ensuring the quality and implementation of proper and standardized higher education. This responsibility should not only be limited to the level of higher education institutions, but also includes all existing study programs. Therefore, it is important to emphasize that the authority in granting accreditation should remain in the hands of the Government, not solely by non-governmental institutions.

The lack of government/minister’s responsibility to guarantee the quality of higher education, one of the minister’s responsibilities, i.e. to evaluate the implementation of higher education, has disappeared. Thus, the absence of government responsibility through the minister to evaluate the implementation of higher education through accreditation of study programs is contrary to Article 31 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution, which reads, “The Government shall exert to hold a national educational system to improve the faith and devotions as well as noble morals in the framework of developing the national life, as stipulated by virtue of law.

In the petitums, the Petitioners requested the Court to declare Article 60 paragraph (2) of the National Education System Law conditionally unconstitutional if not interpreted as “Accreditation of a program and education unit shall be the responsibility of the Government.” They also requested that Article 55 paragraph (5) of the Higher Education Law be declared conditionally unconstitutional if not interpreted as “The accreditation of Study Programs shall be conducted by the National Accreditation Board for Higher Education.” They wished Article 55 paragraphs (6) and (7) be declared unconstitutional. They also asked that the phrase “independent accreditation agency” in Article 55 paragraph (8) be declared conditionally unconstitutional if not interpreted as “Further provisions on accreditation as referred to in paragraph (1) and the National Accreditation Board for Higher Education as referred to in paragraph (4) shall be set out in a Ministerial Regulation.”

The Petitioners are the cooperation body of law deans of public universities in Indonesia represented by chairperson Dahliana Hasan, secretary Ferry Fathurokhman, and treasurer Erma Rusdiana; lecturers Aan Eko Widiarto, Prof. Ali Masyhar Mursyid, Prof. Retno Saraswati, Prof. Ferdi, Suherman, Imam Budi Santoso, Simplexius Asa, and Parulian Paidi Aritonang; as well as students Endrianto Bayu Setiawan, Iren Sudarya, and Ahmad Reihan Thoriq.

Author       : Mimi Kartika
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Andhini S.F.
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian versions, the Indonesian version will prevail.

---