KIP asserts decision on Jokowi and Gibran's diplomas is neutral

Jakarta — Indonesia’s Central Information Commission (KIP) Deputy Chair Arya Sandhiyudha has stressed that the commission’s decision concerning the diplomas of President Joko Widodo and Vice-President Gibran Rakabuming Raka is neutral in character.

He has urged all parties not to claim that the KIP decision favours any particular faction. “The KIP decision is neutral. No party should claim that the Information Commission favours any particular narrative,” Arya said in a statement in Jakarta on Friday.

Arya emphasised that every decision by the Commissioner Panel in Public Information Dispute Resolution Hearings at the Central Information Commission is based entirely on law and trial evidence. “We ensure that all Commissioners serving as the Commissioner Panel at the Central Information Commission in various Public Information Dispute Resolution Hearings make decisions on the basis of Law Number 14 of 2008 concerning Public Information Disclosure, other related legislation, and applicable regulations, by carefully and thoroughly considering facts revealed during the hearings,” he said.

He stressed that KIP has no interest in entering into political polemics or public opinion concerning the authenticity or validity of any particular figure’s diploma. “KIP RI has no interest and is not remotely interested in entering into public polemics. The Commissioner Panel does not take into consideration public discourse that has developed between parties supporting and opposing the issue of whether former President Joko Widodo’s diploma is genuine or counterfeit, nor does it consider debates about the validity of Vice-President Gibran Rakabuming Raka’s diploma,” Arya said.

“The decision is entirely the result of the professionalism of the Commissioner Panel acting as a ‘judge’ at the Information Commission, sworn according to each person’s religious beliefs to comply with the law in carrying out their duties,” he added.

He explained that in cases of information disputes concerning diploma documents used in the process of nominating for public office, the Commissioner Panel assessed these documents as relating to state administration and therefore must be tested within the framework of public information disclosure as stipulated in Law Number 14 of 2008.

Therefore, when the Commissioner Panel decides that information is public information to be disclosed, that decision falls within the legal framework of information disclosure — not within the framework of proving whether a document is true or false.

“If a decision states that information should be disclosed, then the function of that decision is to provide access to information in accordance with disclosure principles, whether to the General Elections Commission, Universitas Gadjah Mada, or the Ministry of Education and Culture. Similarly, if a decision states that certain parts are exempted, then the function of that decision is to protect what several laws and regulations require to be protected. After that, the public, researchers, or parties who previously held pro or contra views are welcome to use that information to conduct their own examination, analysis, or assessment,” he said.

“After a decision states that information is disclosed, the public — including parties with pro and contra views — are welcome to use it to examine in their own way, whether to strengthen confidence in existing views or to change preliminary conclusions they have held,” Arya said.

For this reason, Arya warned that no party should claim that KIP favours one narrative in public polemics. “The KIP decision is a neutral decision within the legal framework of public information disclosure. No party should invoke the Central Information Commission to strengthen its own subjective interpretation. That exceeds our authority,” he stressed.

He added that KIP’s task ends at determining the status of public information disclosure, while further interpretation falls within the realm of the public and other legal mechanisms if necessary. “That is the limit of our authority — which must not be interfered with, and must not be interpreted beyond the mandate of the Information Commission,” Arya said.