The Supreme Court of Indonesia has issued a final ruling invalidating the Certificate of Equivalence for the high school education of Gibran Rakabuming Raka.
This decision, released in the full text of verdict Number 742 K/TUN/2026, mandates that the Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education revoke the document, which served as a requirement for Gibran’s candidacy in the 2024 vice presidential election.
The ruling follows a cassation filed by advocate Subhan Palal after lower courts previously declined to hear the challenge. The lawsuit filed by Subhan was initially not accepted by the Jakarta State Administrative Court (PTUN Jakarta). He then appealed, but the Jakarta State Administrative High Court (PT TUN) strengthened the Jakarta PTUN decision dated May 12, 2026, which the Supreme Court later ruled on August 12, 2026, could not be maintained and had to be cancelled.
By granting the petition in its entirety, the Supreme Court declared the Certificate of Equivalence Number 9149/D.D1/KS/2019, issued on August 6, 2019, to be invalid and void by law.
The Directorate General of Primary and Secondary Education, Ministry of Education and Culture (now named the Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education, Kemendikdasmen) held the status of Defendant or Respondent in the case. Eleven days after the verdict was handed down, the copy of the decision was released on Tuesday, November 10, 2026.
Legal Grounds for Invalidation
The Supreme Court’s decision rests on six primary considerations, including a finding that the original issuance of the certificate violated the principle of formal accuracy. The Court determined that equating a foreign curriculum with a national one without supporting diplomas or certificates of completion was an act of negligence that affected the material facts of the decision.
Furthermore, the Court cited a new legal reality, specifically the Constitutional Court Ruling Number 01/PHPU.PRES-XXIV/2026 dated October 5, 2026. The Supreme Court categorized this as a notoire feiten—a notorious fact—that altered the legal landscape regarding the disputed object. In its deliberations, the Supreme Court emphasized the need to prioritize substantive justice over procedural constraints, such as claims of expired filing deadlines or insufficient parties in the lawsuit.
Consequences for the Vice Presidency
Yusril Ihza Mahendra, the Coordinating Minister for Law, Human Rights, Immigration, and Corrections, stated that there are no longer any legal gaps for Vice President Gibran Rakabuming Raka to prove the validity of his diploma documents, adding that the Supreme Court’s cassation decision is already final.
Yusril noted from the Presidential Palace Complex in Jakarta on Tuesday, November 10, 2026, that the only legal effort that can be undertaken is a Judicial Review by the parties, namely the Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education and the plaintiffs. Hours earlier, Minister of State Secretariat and Presidential Spokesperson Prasetyo Hadi revealed that a meeting took place between President Prabowo and Vice President Gibran in Jakarta on Tuesday morning.
/data/photo/2026/11/11/6af39b7cdda7d.jpg "Photo: Kompas")
Because the Ministry is a state institution, it is restricted from filing for a Judicial Review under existing constitutional guidelines. Because Gibran was not a direct party to the lawsuit that invalidated his certificate, his capacity to compel the government to initiate a review is still being litigated.
Additional Legal Context from Court Sources
The debate over Gibran’s education stems from whether he holds a senior high school diploma or whether the Equivalence Statement Letter Number 9149/D/D1/KS/2019 dated August 6, 2019, issued by the Directorate General of Primary and Secondary Education, is legally valid. The statement letter declared that Gibran’s education from abroad had been equated with vocational high school education specializing in accounting and finance.
Administrative law recognizes the concepts of “null and void” and “voidable,” with Law Number 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration using the terms “illegal” and “can be cancelled,” where illegal decisions do not bind from the time they are established and all resulting legal consequences are deemed to have never existed.