The Petitioners presenting the judicial review petition of Law No. 12 of 2012 on Higher Education, Thursday (2/26/2026). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court held the preliminary hearing for the material judicial review of Article 55 paragraph (2) of Law No. 12 of 2012 on Higher Education on Thursday, February 26, 2026. The Case No. 72/PUU-XXIV/2026 was filed by Wirdi Hisroh Komeni and Irianto Kabes (Petitioners I and II).

While present at the hearing remotely, the Petitioners explained that they had completed a masters’ degree in October 2025, graduating cum laude. They believe this academic achievement reflects their hard work, intellectual capacity, and commitment to higher education.

They plan on pursuing doctoral studies to develop their academic and professional competencies at reputed universities that boast competent, experienced professors, in order to increase their knowledge quality and analytical capacities optimally.

In addition to academic development, the plan is also related to career prospects, particularly participation in the Civil Servant Candidate (CPNS) selection. “Higher educational qualifications are an important factor in enhancing competitiveness, job qualifications, and the likelihood of passing the selection,” stated Wirdi Hisroh Komeni.

However, the Petitioners argued that the implementation of Article 55 paragraph (2) of Law No. 12 of 2012 on Higher Education has been interpreted and applied as the basis for imposing certain accreditation requirements—such as an A or Excellent accreditation—to pursue doctoral studies at several universities. As a result, they have been unable to apply and compete on equal footing because the accreditation status of their study programs or universities do not meet the criteria set by the destination institution.

They contended that this restriction does not take into account individual capacity, achievement, and competency, but is based solely on administrative factors beyond an individual’s control. In practice, specific accreditation requirements have effectively barred them from continuing their education at their desired universities.

The Petitioners further contended that accreditation, originally intended as an instrument for institutional quality assurance, has shifted into an individual requirement that restricts citizens’ rights to pursue further education.

“The issue is that accreditation, which was initially regulated to determine the feasibility of a study program and higher education institution, has been interpreted and used as a requirement to continue higher education in certain study programs,” said Petitioner II.

He added that such application harms their constitutional rights insofar as the norm is interpreted as a basis for restricting individuals from pursuing higher education and as an administrative requirement in applying for and obtaining employment.

Beyond its impact on access to education, the implementation of the norm is also considered detrimental in the field of employment. In recruitment processes, several government agencies and employers require specific accreditation statuses of applicants’ universities and study programs as a basis for recognizing the cum laude distinction.

Consequently, although they factually graduated cum laude, the Petitioners claimed they were not recognized as such in employment selection processes because they did not meet the specified accreditation requirements. They argued that this condition violates their constitutional rights to legal certainty and equal treatment before the law.

The Petitioners maintained that the constitutional harm they have suffered is specific, actual, and concrete, as they have directly encountered obstacles in continuing their education and obtaining employment. They also assert the existence of a causality (causal verband) between the enforcement of Article 55 paragraph (2) of the Higher Education Law and the constitutional harm experienced.

Accordingly, in their petitums, the Petitioners requested the Court to declare Article 55 paragraph (2) of the Higher Education Law conditionally unconstitutional and legally binding, insofar as it is interpreted and applied as a basis for restricting individual rights to: a) pursue higher levels of education; and/or b) apply for and obtain employment, including recognition of graduation distinctions and individual academic achievements.

They also asked the Court, “To declare Article 55 paragraph (2) of Law No. 12 of 2012 on Higher Education remains constitutional insofar as it is interpreted to mean that accreditation is used solely to assess the feasibility of study programs and higher education institutions as institutions, and not as an administrative requirement restricting individual citizens’ rights in education and employment.”

In response to the petition, Constitutional Justice Arsul Sani advised the Petitioners to seek and study Constitutional Court decisions that have been granted. “Find and read the section on ‘facts of the case’ in those decisions. In a Constitutional Court decision, after the Petitioners’ profile is detailed, the second part sets out the facts of the case. In that section, the complete petition—usually already revised—is included, demonstrating how a petition is structured, beginning with the Court’s authority, legal standing, the grounds of the petition, and the petitums. If a petition is granted, it means the formal requirements have been fulfilled, because the Constitutional Court differs from the District Court,” he explained.

He further requested that the Petitioners align the description of the principal grounds of the petition with the relief sought in the petitums.

Before adjourning the session, the panel of justices announced that the Petitioner would have 14 days to revise the petition. The revised petition must have been received by the Court no later than 12:00 WIB on Wednesday, March 11, 2026.

Explore case No. 72/PUU-XXIV/2026 (in Indonesian).

Author       : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Adriana A.Y.
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.

---