The Petitioners of Case No. 243/PUU-XXIII/2025 at the petition revision hearing for the material judicial review of the Higher Education Law, Thursday (1/8/2026). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court held the second hearing for the material judicial review of Article 31 paragraph (3) of Law No. 12 of 2012 on Higher Education, petitioned by the Indonesia Open University (UT) on Thursday, January 8, 2026. At the hearing for case No. 243/PUU-XXIII/2025, chaired by Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat, examined the revisions to the petition.

The Petitioners are Bernita Matondang, Susi Lestari, M. Imelda Novita S., Nova Syafariyanto Prambudi, Indah Lidiyani, Ananda Putri Puspita, Lely Diana Hatan, Ariyanto Zalukhu, Karwana Sakahou, Ame Mira Putri Pramesti, Evita Mulyani, Ikke Nurjanah, and Mahira Azzahra Widiani.

Bernita stated that a new piece of evidence, in the form of proof of the proportionality of the distance learning (PJJ) assessment system, had been added. The Petitioners also further clarified the constitutional benchmarks used in the petition: Article 28D paragraph (1), Article 31 paragraph (1), and Article 28C paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. They believe these three norms are an interrelated basis for reviewing the constitutionality of the challenged norm.

The Petitioners then revised the description of their constitutional losses by clarifying the causal relation between the application of the challenged provision and the constitutional harm they suffer as distance learning students, arising from the absence of normative guarantees for distance learning graduates as well as the lack of assurance of quality and equivalent education.

“Further revisions were also made to all grounds of the petition, namely the conceptual and theoretical meaning of distance learning (PJJ), the need for a national distance learning strategy, and the quality assurance system as a constitutional element, a comparison between the Australian and Indonesian assurance systems, the factual systematic absence of norms, and the disharmony of the norm a quo and its contradiction with the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia,” Bernita explained.

Also read: UT Students Question Legal Limits of Proportionality in Distance Learning Assessment System

At the preliminary hearing on Tuesday, December 16, 2025, the Petitioners argued that Article 31 paragraph (3) of the Higher Education Law is in conflict with Article 28D paragraph (1), Article 31 paragraphs (1) and (3), and Article 28C paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. They contended that the article does not provide clear legal limits regarding the proportionality of the distance learning assessment system. The lack of clarity in this norm opens up room for varied implementation of policies between institutions. This places the Petitioners in a position where they do not have legal certainty and equal protection, compared to distance learning students at other universities.

They claimed that the right to education as guaranteed in Article 31 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution shall not only be interpreted as the right to be registered as a student administratively. Rather, it includes the right to obtain a fair, rational, meaningful, and holistic education process oriented towards the development of students’ abilities, ranging from learning activities, academic counseling, lecturer-student interactions, to a proportional and fair evaluation system.

The Petitioners also presented a comparison of the implementation of learning and assessment systems at four other universities offering distance learning. They observed that all of those institutions conduct learning within a one-semester time frame, but there are significant variations in the effective duration of lectures, midterm exams, the weight of final exams, remedial mechanisms, and assessment systems.

These differences essentially reflect the academic autonomy of each university, which should be appreciated as a form of innovation in the implementation of distant learning. However, excessive variation in fundamental aspects such as the weighting of final exams, mid-semester evaluations, and access to remedial tests also indicates that the norms in the law have not yet provided uniform minimum standards as instruments for protecting student rights.

Based on these arguments, the Petitioners request that the Court declare Article 31 paragraph (3) of Law No. 12 of 2012 on Higher Education constitutional, provided that the phrase “a grading system that guarantees the quality of graduates” be interpreted to mean that technical regulations regarding the proportionality of process and outcome assessments shall be further regulated in implementing regulations that guarantee legal certainty, academic justice, and the protection of student rights.

Explore case No. 243/PUU-XXIII/2025 (in Indonesian).

Author         : Sri Pujianti
Editor          : N. Rosi
Translators   : Yuniar Widiastuti, Rizky Kurnia C. (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.

---