301 UI Professors Challenge PTUN Ruling on Bahlil's Dissertation

The professors are submitting an amicus curiae, or friends of the court, brief in the cassation case at the Supreme Court. The submission relates to the annulment of ethical sanctions against the dissertation promoters of the Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources, Bahlil Lahadalia. This move comes amidst the controversy over the State Administrative Court (PTUN) ruling, which overturned the ethical sanctions previously imposed by the University of Indonesia on the dissertation promoters. The ruling was subsequently challenged and has now reached the cassation stage at the Supreme Court. They are asking the cassation judges to consider the substance of the academic ethics violation, which is deemed more fundamental than the administrative aspect. In the amicus curiae document, they contend that the PTUN ruling could set a precedent that weakens universities’ authority to uphold academic integrity through internal mechanisms. “It is hoped that in the Supreme Court cassation hearing, the judges, with their integrity, will consider the academic ethics violations that occurred, which are the most essential issue,” said one of the members of the Amicus Curiae responsible team, Sulistyowati Irianto, at the University of Indonesia on Thursday, 4 June 2026. The professors also assess that the annulment of ethical sanctions through the courts could shift the boundaries of authority between higher education institutions and judicial bodies, as well as create a new precedent in handling academic violations. In the document, they quote a speech by Indonesia’s first Vice President, Mohammad Hatta, at UI in 1957, which affirmed that the duty of a university is to build character that loves truth. “The ruling of the PTUN judge also undermines the founding rationale of the university as well as the existence of the scientific community,” said Sulistyowati. According to them, universities have a different function from political or business institutions because their task is to produce knowledge and maintain academic standards. Therefore, the campus’s authority in upholding academic norms and ethics must be respected. “Autonomy is the natural right of a university. The university’s authority to safeguard academic values, norms, and integrity must be respected,” she said. This case originated from the internal investigation results of UI conveyed by the Board of Professors to the Rector of UI on 10 January 2025. In that letter, the Board of Professors stated they found four violations related to Bahlil Lahadalia’s doctoral study process. These findings included dishonesty in research data collection, a graduation process deemed to have proceeded too quickly without fulfilling academic requirements, and an alleged conflict of interest between Bahlil and his two promoters, with the initials CW and AS. Based on these findings, UI imposed ethical sanctions on the promoters. However, this decision was later challenged at the PTUN. CW’s lawsuit was partially granted, while AS’s lawsuit was fully granted, resulting in the UI sanctions being annulled. The professors also highlighted the ruling, citing several irregularities, including the inclusion of an irrelevant party in the ruling document and witness testimony whose validity was questioned. Consequently, the professors are asking the Supreme Court not only to judge the case from formal administrative and procedural aspects but also to consider the substance of the academic ethics violation, which is the heart of the matter. In the amicus curiae, the professors stress that a doctoral degree is the highest academic achievement obtained through a long and rigorous process. They consider that the doctoral education process cannot be seen merely as an administrative formality. “Becoming a doctor is not a hit and run, especially if done with a mentality of cutting corners.” According to the UI professors, excessive intervention in a campus’s academic authority risks weakening the foundations of national higher education. They warned that universities must not turn into institutions that submit to political pressure or economic power. Through this amicus curiae, the professors hope the Supreme Court can restore the authority of the academic ethics mechanism and maintain the autonomy of higher education institutions in upholding scientific standards. Bahlil Lahadalia has yet to provide a response regarding the ethics ruling or the subsequent legal steps. On previous occasions, he merely stated he would follow the process and referred to the matter as an internal campus affair. “I respect whatever is decided by UI, because I am a student, and I will later read and see what needs to be done,” Bahlil said in March 2025.