Yayasan Pendidikan Indonesia Blog

UTS College – #UTSCollege
Australian Parliamentary Library
Australian Government #AustralianGoverment
Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia
Kementerian Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah

Shadows over a Vice President’s Credentials: Why UTS Still Holds the Missing Piece in Gibran’s Education Controversy

By
MYR Agung Sidayu
Yayasan Pendidikan Indonesia
Special Consultative Status with ECOSOC
United Nations since 2013

Introduction.

In the courtroom of Indonesia’s Constitutional Court in early October 2026, a quiet yet consequential truth emerged. Ministry officials, under questioning from the justices, confirmed what critics had long suspected: when Gibran Rakabuming Raka applied for educational equivalency in 2019, the documents submitted from his studies at UTS Insearch (now UTS College) in Sydney consisted of a Certificate of Attendance, an academic transcript, and confirmation of enrolment. There was no diploma. There was no certificate of award. There was no testamur affirming successful completion of a programme.

The Court subsequently formalised this finding. In its decision dated 6 October on case 01/PHPU.PRES-XXIV/2026, the justices stated that the Certificate of Attendance and its supporting documents “are not evidence of graduation or completion, but evidence of attendance in the learning process.” The Court found no convincing proof that Gibran possessed a diploma, certificate, or foreign qualification that could lawfully serve as the basis for equivalency with an Indonesian senior high school (SMA) or vocational high school (SMK), as required by electoral law.

Yet the petition to disqualify him was dismissed as inadmissible—primarily because the petitioners lacked legal standing and because Gibran had already been inaugurated as Vice President in October 2024. The Court explicitly declared that it could not remove him from office and left questions of eligibility to other competent authorities.

This is the current state of Vice President Gibran’s case as of mid-October 2026: judicial acknowledgement of incomplete documentation, no disqualification, and unresolved questions that continue to circulate in an already overheated public debate, raising concerns that they could escalate into issues threatening national security.

How the Documents Came to Light.

In reality, Gibran’s educational path—later that of a national leader—was quite ordinary. After completing junior high school in Solo, he attended Orchid Park Secondary School in Singapore (approximately 2002–2004). He then enrolled at UTS Insearch in Sydney, reportedly in a Diploma of Business Studies pathway programme around 2005–2006. He subsequently continued his studies and obtained a bachelor’s degree through the Management Development Institute of Singapore (MDIS).

In August 2019, the Indonesian Ministry of Education issued an equivalency letter stating that his UTS Insearch education was equivalent to SMK-level knowledge in accounting and finance. That letter became a key supporting document when he registered as a vice-presidential candidate in 2023–2024. During the Constitutional Court hearings, however, ministry witnesses testified that the underlying foreign documents were limited. The justices pressed repeatedly: Were there any other certificates? Was there an actual graduation document? The answer remained consistent: no.

One point that has not always received full attention is the testimony of the Director General of the Ministry of Education, who stated that the equivalency certificate was based not solely on a foreign secondary-school completion certificate, but also on other evidence, including the Certificate of Attendance accompanied by a transcript. It was on this basis that the equivalency letter equating the studies to SMK level was issued.

Education experts appearing before the Court also noted that UTS Insearch did not offer a standard “Grade 12” senior secondary programme of the kind referenced in the Indonesian equivalency letter. The institution operated as a pathway college designed to prepare international students for degree programmes at the University of Technology Sydney through foundation or diploma courses.

As explained by the Indonesian Education Attaché in Canberra during the hearings, a Certificate of Attendance typically records participation and attendance percentage—often issued for visa-compliance or administrative purposes. It is distinct from a formal certificate of completion or award. Ministry officials stated that completion status was inferred from the transcript.

The Court rejected that inference as insufficient under the requirements of electoral law to prove that a candidate had “completed” an education equivalent to senior secondary level. This conclusion is controversial when compared with the Court’s own legal reasoning, which could also be interpreted as affirming that the matter falls fully within the authority of the Ministry of Education.

The Silence from Sydney.

Throughout this controversy, UTS College (the current name of the former Insearch) has remained silent on the specific case. Reports indicate that the institution has declined media requests for information. This is unsurprising. Australian privacy law strongly protects student records. Universities and colleges do not routinely confirm, deny, or discuss an individual’s enrolment, attendance, results, or issued documents without the student’s explicit consent or formal legal compulsion.

Yet the moral dimension of that silence has grown sharper with every courtroom revelation. The documents in question are not vague personal papers; they formed part of the official basis for a candidate’s eligibility for the second-highest office in the world’s third-largest democracy. Public trust in both the integrity of Indonesia’s administrative processes and the foreign credentials themselves has come under strain. Speculation ranges from pure administrative gaps to more serious allegations of incomplete or misrepresented qualifications.

In a broadly similar though slightly different case, the author has personal experience of seeking clarification from a private university in Poland concerning a Doctor of Law degree issued to Arsul Sani, a Constitutional Court justice. The Rector replied that student confidentiality must be protected, but because the matter had become a subject of public attention in Indonesia, the Rector, on special consideration, confirmed that Arsul Sani’s academic degree was valid.

In situations such as this, a limited and carefully worded institutional statement from UTS College would serve the public interest without violating privacy. Such a statement need not name Gibran or confirm any individual’s records. It would be sufficient to explain, as a matter of general policy:

• What a Certificate of Attendance from the relevant period typically contained and was intended to signify;
• The distinction between a statement of attendance, an academic transcript, and a formal award or testamur;
• The nature of the Diploma of Business Studies or similar pathway programmes offered in the mid-2000s; and
• The institution’s standard procedures for authenticating documents it has issued.

Such clarification would help the public, the courts, and related institutions in Indonesia better understand a foreign education system that differs from Indonesia’s own. It is for this reason that the Ministry of Education regulates equivalency in accordance with recommendations under the UNESCO Convention. The author believes this would also protect UTS’s own reputation against the risk of its documents being misunderstood or misused in Indonesia’s current political controversy. UTS is a credible educational institution, not merely a commercial provider of educational services that can afterwards disregard its moral responsibility.

Conclusion.

Vice President Gibran has publicly stated that he respects the Constitutional Court’s process and maintains that he completed senior secondary education—because, he has said, he would otherwise have been unable to proceed to university studies. Some of his supporters have hinted that additional documents, such as an Advanced Diploma, may yet be produced in due course. As of mid-October 2026, those documents have not been publicly presented in a manner that resolves the Court’s findings.

Meanwhile, the Court’s ruling has shifted the practical terrain. Because the justices declined to disqualify an already inaugurated official, attention has moved to other avenues—ethical complaints against electoral organisers, possible legislative oversight, or further administrative review by education authorities. The core factual finding, however, remains: the primary foreign document relied upon for secondary-level equivalency was a certificate of attendance, not a credential of completion.

Educational institutions exist to certify knowledge and achievement with clarity and integrity. When their documents become central to questions about high public office in another country, a measured contribution to transparency is not political interference. It is institutional responsibility. UTS College is under no legal compulsion to speak.

Whether the institution chooses to provide the limited public clarification that the facts now warrant will say a great deal about how it understands its role in an interconnected world—one in which academic credentials travel far beyond campus boundaries and, at times, into the very centre of democratic accountability.