T. Basaruddin testifying as an expert for the Government at a judicial review hearing of the National Education System Law and the Higher Education Law, Wednesday (8/20/2025). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — Professor at the Faculty of Computer Science of the University of Indonesia (UI) T. Basaruddin stated that independent accreditation agencies (LAMs) do not diminish the Government’s responsibility and role of in ensuring the quality of higher education. He made the statement when testifying an expert in higher education quality assurance, presented by the President/Government in case No. 60/PUU-XXIII/2025 on the constitutionality 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).

Basaruddin continued explaining that policies on standards and quality assurance systems in higher education are stipulated in ministerial regulations. “In addition, the performance of LAMs is evaluated by the National Accreditation Board for Higher Education (BAN-PT), and the results are submitted to the Minister,” said Basaruddin at the plenary courtroom, Wednesday, August 20, 2025.

In terms of financing, as regulated in the Regulation of the Minister of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology No. 53 of 2023, the cost to obtain “good” accreditation status, whether through LAM or BAN-PT, is borne by the Government. Only for the optional “excellent” accreditation status are higher education institutions required to cover the costs themselves.

Basaruddin noted that the accreditation model developed through LAMs is considered in alignment with international best practices. This is demonstrated by several LAMs having obtained recognition from international organizations.

The Indonesian Accreditation Agency for Higher Education in Health (LAM-PTKes) has been recognized by the World Federation for Medical Education (WFME), while the Accreditation Council for Education (LAMDIK) and Institute of Accreditation for Economics, Management, Business, and Accounting Programs (LAMEMBA) have been recognized and declared compliant with the international standards and guidelines issued by the International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE). The international recognition of LAMs will enhance public confidence, including global trust, in graduates from study programs accredited by these agencies.

“The involvement of society or the private sector in carrying out accreditation is also a common practice found in almost all countries,” Basaruddin remarked.

He further explained that in many countries, the cost of the accreditation process is generally borne by the universities, even when accreditation is conducted by public (governmental) accreditation agencies. In Malaysia, for instance, the Malaysian Qualifications Agency (MQA) charges approximately 5,000 Malaysian ringgit (RM) for provisional accreditation per program and about 10,000 RM for full accreditation, excluding assessors’ travel and accommodation expenses. Meanwhile, private accreditation agencies in Malaysia charge between 15,000 RM and 25,000 RM per study program.

Another common practice in several countries is that universities may apply for government funding to cover accreditation costs as part of their regular annual budgets.

A similar policy is also implemented by the Taiwanese government. This underscores the principle that higher education is not a “public good” that must be fully financed by the State. For universities, study program accreditation, apart from serving as an expression of public accountability, also enhances competitiveness and international reputation.

Similar views were expressed by Suprijadi, head of the Quality Assurance Unit of the Bandung Institute of Technology (ITB), who testified as a witness presented by the President/Government at the hearing. According to him, the implementation of accreditation at the study program level represents a form of public accountability in safeguarding the quality of higher education.

National and international accreditation status serves as an external mechanism that compels study programs to consistently maintain and enhance their quality while also fostering a culture of quality transformation at the faculty/school level in realizing their vision and mission. The accreditation process not only evaluates conformity with standards but also identifies gaps that may serve as the basis for formulating faculty/school development plans.

Suprijadi emphasized that efforts to improve the quality of higher education are among the key drivers of national progress. Proportional financing of higher education quality assurance through well-managed accreditation efforts must be a matter of concern for both the Government and society.

“An accreditation process that is conducted with integrity and adheres to best practices is an imperative that must be realized,” he concluded.

Also read:

Cooperation Body of Law Deans Challenges Provisions on Accreditation

Council of Law Deans Revises Petition on National Education System Law

Minister Denies Govt Relinquished Responsibility for Study Programs Accreditation

Independent Accreditation Agencies Supervised, Evaluated by Govt

UGM’s Religious and Cross-cultural Studies Has Lost 55 Million for Accreditation

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.

They 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.”

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.

---