Pronouncement of decree in Case No. 72/PUU-XXIV/2026 on the judicial review of Law No. 12 of 2012 on Higher Education, Thursday (4/16/2026). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court granted the withdrawal of a petition for the judicial review of paragraph 55(2) of Law No. 12 of 2012 on Higher Education against the 1945 Constitution in Case No. 72/PUU-XXIV/2026. The Court found that the request to withdraw the petition was supported by valid legal reasons.

“[The Court] grants the Petitioners’ request to withdraw the petition,” said Chief Justice Suhartoyo during the pronouncement of the decree for Case No. 72/PUU-XXIV/2026 on Thursday, April 16, 2026, in the plenary courtroom of the Constitutional Court in Jakarta.

The Court had received a formal letter of withdrawal and subsequently confirmed the matter during a hearing. In that session, the Petitioners, through their legal counsel, affirmed their intention to withdraw the petition. The Court therefore declared that the Petitioners are no longer permitted to refile the same petition.

Also read:
Petition Against University Accreditation as Civil Service Requirement Withdrawn

Petitioners Claim University Accreditation An Unconstitutional Civil Service Requirement

Previously, the Petitioners were graduates of a master’s program who completed their studies in October 2025 with cum laude distinction. They argued that such academic achievement reflected their seriousness, intellectual capacity, and commitment to higher education.

They planned to pursue doctoral studies to further enhance their academic and professional competencies. According to them, continuing their studies at reputable universities with qualified and experienced faculty members would allow them to strengthen their academic quality and analytical capacity.

Beyond academic purposes, the plan was also linked to career prospects, particularly in participating in the recruitment of civil servant candidates (CPNS). Wirdi Hisroh Komeni explained that higher educational qualifications are an important factor in increasing competitiveness, job eligibility, and the chances of passing the selection process.

However, the Petitioners argued that paragraph 55(2) of the Higher Education Law had been interpreted and applied as the basis for imposing specific accreditation requirements, such as “A” or “Excellent”, for admission to doctoral programs at certain universities. As a result, they were unable to apply and compete on equal footing because the accreditation status of their previous university or study program did not meet the required criteria.

They maintained that such restrictions disregard individual capacity and achievements, relying solely on administrative factors beyond their control. In practice, these accreditation requirements had limited their access to higher education institutions of their choice. The Petitioners also argued that accreditation, which should function as an institutional quality assurance mechanism, had shifted into an individual requirement that restricts citizens’ right to pursue further education.

They further claimed that the implementation of this provision had also affected employment opportunities. In recruitment processes, several government institutions and employers reportedly require certain accreditation standards from applicants’ universities and study programs as a basis for recognizing cum laude distinctions.

As a result, despite graduating with cum laude honors, the Petitioners claimed that their distinction was not recognized in job selection processes because they did not meet the required accreditation criteria. They argued that this condition violated their constitutional rights to legal certainty and equal treatment before the law. According to them, the constitutional losses they suffered were specific and actual, as they directly faced obstacles in pursuing further education and employment. They also asserted a causal relationship between the enforcement of paragraph 55(2) of the Higher Education Law and the constitutional losses they experienced.

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

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.

The Complete Decision: Decision No. 72/PUU-XXIV/2026

 

---