Minister of Higher Education, Science, and Technology Brian Yuliarto testifying at a judicial review hearing of the National Education System Law and the Higher Education Law, Wednesday (7/23/2025). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.
JAKARTA (MKRI) — Minister of Higher Education, Science, and Technology Brian Yuliarto denied the assertion that involving the public in study program accreditation constitutes a relinquishment of state responsibility, asserting that such involvement is consistent with the principles enshrined in the Constitution. He made the statement at a 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) on Wednesday, July 23, 2025.
“There is no relinquishment of state responsibility in ensuring the quality of education, even though external accreditation is carried out by Independent Accreditation Agencies (LAM), as they serve as a credible form of public accountability,” said Brian at the fourth hearing for case No. 60/PUU-XXIII/2025 in the plenary courtroom.
He explained that the Constitution provides legal room, or open legal policy, for lawmakers to determine a national education system. Although the national education system is established by the Government, science and knowledge development are not monopolized by the state and are not exclusively directed by the Government.
He emphasized that the development of science and knowledge is the domain of educational institutions, including universities, professional bodies, and the labor market, all of which are interconnected, collaborative, and dynamic. Rejecting public participation in education would lead to statism, as underscored by the Constitutional Court in Decisions No. 11-14-21-126/PUU-VII/2009 and No. 136/PUU-VII/2009.
LAM, according to Brian, is aligned with the objectives of study program accreditation as set out in Article 60 paragraph (2) of the Sisdiknas Law and Article 55 paragraph (5) of the Dikti Law, namely to ensure “public accountability.” LAM’s existence is key to avoiding conflicts of interest between the implementation and the assurance of educational quality. LAM also aligns with quality management standards for higher education governance in a global context.
Moreover, Regulation of the Minister of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology (Permendikbudristek) No. 53 of 2023 contains detailed provisions to ensure that any LAM established possesses the required capacity and substantive suitability to carry out study program accreditation. The Ministry retains authority to approve or reject any proposals to establish a LAM.
The Government also exercises oversight over the operational costs of program accreditation proposed by a prospective LAM before granting establishment approval. Government supervision of LAMs is implemented through two mechanisms: (1) ministerial supervision of LAM functions as mandated by Article 98 paragraph (1) of Permendikbudristek No. 53 of 2023, and (2) monitoring by the National Accreditation Board for Higher Education (BAN-PT), which evaluates LAM’s accreditation practices as outlined in Article 98 paragraphs (2) and (3) of the same regulation.
These governance mechanisms—including regulatory frameworks, national education standards, LAM licensing, evaluation instruments, oversight, and sanctions—ensure that accreditation is conducted independently and professionally, free from conflict of interest, and based on objective instruments, while remaining in line with the National Higher Education Standards (SN-Dikti).
Furthermore, institutional accreditation (university-level) and study program accreditation (program- or course-level) focus on different sets of standards. Differentiating between the two allows the public to access more relevant information about the quality of education offered by individual programs.
This separation represents a strategic step to preserve the relevance and objectivity of quality assessments in Indonesian higher education. Each study program is evaluated based on its unique characteristics and needs, while institutional accreditation focuses on the institution’s overall governance capacity and effectiveness. Nevertheless, institutional and program accreditations are interrelated. Good institutional governance contributes to well-managed programs, and excellent institutional accreditation outcomes tend to correlate with strong program accreditation results.
Although institutional and program accreditations are distinct, they remain interconnected. The regulatory design in the Dikti Law recognizes this integration. Article 55 paragraph (3) of the Law mandates BAN-PT to develop a comprehensive accreditation system.
This reflects BAN-PT’s significant role in shaping accreditation policies and instruments for both institutions and study programs. Under Article 55 paragraph (4), BAN-PT is also authorized to conduct institutional accreditation. Additionally, Article 55 paragraph (6) reinforces BAN-PT’s role in recommending the establishment of LAMs to the Minister, ensuring alignment between study program accreditation and national accreditation policy.
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, eight 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.
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.
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.”
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.
Wednesday, July 23, 2025 | 16:02 WIB 725