301 UI Professors Challenge PTUN Ruling on Bahlil's Dissertation

A total of 301 professors from the University of Indonesia (UI) will submit an amicus curiae, or ‘friend of the court’, to the Supreme Court regarding the cassation case. This submission relates to the cancellation of ethical sanctions previously imposed on the dissertation promoters of the Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources, Bahlal Lahadalia.

This move follows the controversy surrounding the Administrative Court (PTUN) ruling, which annulled the ethical sanctions previously imposed by the University of Indonesia on the dissertation promoters. The ruling was subsequently appealed and has now reached the cassation stage at the Supreme Court. The professors are requesting that the cassation judges consider the substance of the academic ethics violations, which they deem more fundamental than mere administrative aspects.

In the amicus curui document, they state that the PTUN ruling has the potential to set a precedent that weakens the authority of universities to enforce academic integrity through internal mechanisms. “It is hoped that in the Supreme Court’s cassation hearing, the judges, with their integrity, will consider the academic ethics violations that have occurred, which are the most essential aspect,” said Sulistyowati Irianto, one of the members of the Amicus Curiae organising committee, at the University of Indonesia on Thursday, 4 June 2026.

The professors also believe that the cancellation of ethical sanctions through the courts could shift the boundaries of authority between higher education institutions and the judiciary, creating a new precedent in handling academic violations. In the document, they cited a 1957 speech by Indonesia’s first Vice President, Mohammad Hatta, at UI, which emphasised that the duty of a university is to shape character that loves the truth. “The PTUN judge’s ruling also undermines the very reason for the existence of the university and the scientific community,” said Sulistyowati.

According to the professors, universities serve a different function from political or business institutions, as they are tasked with producing knowledge and maintaining academic standards. Therefore, the authority of campuses to enforce academic norms and ethics must be respected. “Autonomy is a natural right of the university. The university’s authority to maintain values, norms, and academic integrity must be respected,” she added.

The case originated from the results of an internal UI investigation presented to the UI Rector on 10 January 2025. In that letter, the Board of Professors noted findings of four violations related to Bahlil Lahadalia’s doctoral study process.

These findings included dishonesty in research data collection, a graduation process deemed too rapid without meeting academic requirements, and an alleged conflict of interest between Bahlil and his two promoters, identified by the initials CW and AS.

Following these findings, UI imposed ethical sanctions on the promoters. However, the decision was challenged in the PTUN. The lawsuit by CW was partially granted, while the lawsuit by AS was granted in its entirety, thereby annulling the UI sanctions. The professors also highlighted irregularities in the ruling, including the inclusion of irrelevant parties in the decision documents and the questionable validity of witness testimonies.

Consequently, the professors are requesting that the Supreme Court does not merely assess the case from a formal administrative and procedural perspective, but also considers the substance of the academic ethics violations at the heart of the issue.

In the amicus curiae, the professors emphasised that a doctoral degree is the highest academic achievement, obtained through a long and rigorous process. They argued that the doctoral education process cannot be viewed merely as an administrative formality. “Becoming a doctor is not a ‘hit and run’ affair, especially when done with a mindset of bypassing rules.”

According to the UI professors, excessive intervention in the academic authority of campuses risks weakening the foundations of national higher education. They warned that universities must not transform into institutions that succumb to political pressure or economic forces. Through this amстью curiae, the professors hope the Supreme Court can restore the authority of academic ethical mechanisms and safeguard the autonomy of universities in upholding scientific standards.

As for Bahlil Lahadalia, he has yet to respond to the ethical ruling or subsequent legal steps. In previous occasions, he merely stated that he would follow the process and referred to the matter as an internal campus issue. “I respect whatever UI decides, because as a student, I will read and see what must be done,” Bahlil said in March 2025.