Sidang Ketiga Perkara Ijazah: Uji Klaim "Pasal Titipan" dalam UU MK

Suasana persidangan perkara ijazah di Mahkamah Konstitusi进入REM enters a tightly controlled atmosphere on the occasion of the third hearing (sidang ke-3). A written application (permohonan tertulis) submitted by Bambang Widjojanto, counsel for the petitioner, asks the panel of constitutional judges to summon Gibran Rakabuming Raka to the courtroom. The application, according to the verification of the argument, is intended so that the panel obtains a direct explanation from the party named in the dispute regarding the origin of the diploma in question, rather than relying solely on documents already entered into the case file.

Bertentangan dengan Rho?

Basic point from the verification: the MK's general authority is to examine laws (undang-undang) against the 1945 Constitution. The prevailing practice at the Constitutional Court is that a judicial review (uji material) whose object is not a statute or a presidential regulation falls outside MK's jurisdiction. Against that threshold issue, the applicant's request to summon a living figure outside the case file may be seen as a procedural attempt to keep the case alive before the panel rules on authority (kewenangan).

The applicant nevertheless grounds the request on the argument that a dispute over a diploma cannot be examined thoroughly without hearing the person directly associated with it. On this point, the verification results in a neutral assessment: the MK has no power to compel a witness who is not a party in the dispute, and neither the panel nor any other institution can force someone's presence without a lawful basis. Accordingly, the status of the summons request — whether it was granted, postponed, or simply set aside — is not the same as the status of the main case.

Latar Belakang: Dari "Ijazah Sulit Dilacak" ke Meja Hijau

The dispute did not begin in the courtroom. In 2024, a phrase went viral in public discourse: "ijazah sulit dilacak," referring to the difficulty of tracing the authenticity of diplomas issued by a number of universities in a particular period. Gibran Rakabuming Raka, who according to public records completed a undergraduate degree at the Faculty of Economics, Universitas Negeri Jakarta (UNJ) around 2000, was among the names most frequently mentioned in that discourse. That phrase became the social origin of a legal dispute.

The subsequent movement of the case into the MK was made through a material review application, with the object of the challenge being a ministerial-level decision in the education sector concerning the recognition or equivalence of a diploma for graduates with problematic study periods. The verification of this object is important: the exact number and date of the decision under scrutiny must be matched against the MK case docket, because whether the challenged object is a statute or merely a ministerial decree determines the entire pathway of the case. If it is only a ministerial decree, the general tendency of MK jurisprudence is to state that it is not authorized to examine it (tidak berwenang) and to direct the applicant to the proper forum.

Memeriksa Klaim "Pasal Titipan"

The phrase in the title of the discussion deserves to be broken into two very different meanings. First, the literal meaning: articles whose implementation is explicitly left to a Presidential Regulation (Peraturan Presiden) because the statute itself instructs that the implementing details be set by the President. Second, the critical meaning: articles deliberately left empty, so that the essential functions of the MK are handed over to the executive.

Fact1: In the Law Number 24 of 2023 on the Constitutional Court, there are indeed provisions that instruct that certain implementing arrangements be stipulated in a Presidential Regulation. That is a delegation of implementation, which is still within the normal limits of legislation. Rating for the claim "there are articles whose implementation is delegated to a Perpres": BENAR.

Fact 2: The critical version of the claim — that such articles "empty" the MK's core authority — does not automatically follow. Delegating technical mechanisms is not the same as transferring adjudicative power. The MK Law is still a law discussed and enacted by the DPR, and the MK's function of testing laws against the Constitution remains fully embedded in it. Rating for the claim "pasal titipan empties the MK's core powers": SEBAGIAN BENAR to MISLEADING, depending on which article is being pointed to.

Fact 3: No evidence has yet emerged showing that the existence of a Perpres delegation clause is the operative reason the panel accepted or rejected the diploma case. Linking the two matters — the "titipan" articles and the fate of the application — is, based on verification, an inference that has not been established. The two issues sit at different levels: one is statutory interpretation, the other is procedural authority.

Documentation and the Unfinished Verification

Several matters remain open and must not be presented as settled. First, the exact object of the material review, which determines whether MK has authority to hear the case at all. Second, the panel's ruling on the authority issue, which in MK practice is often delivered at an early stage of the hearing. Third, the panel's ruling on the request to summon the figure named in the dispute. Fourth, whether the terminology "pasal titipan" is being used in its literal sense or in its critical sense — a distinction that changes the rating of the claim entirely.

The synthesis of the verification: the third hearing marks an escalation of procedural tension, not yet a resolution of the substantive question. The applicant's written summons request has not changed the burden of proof of the authority issue, and the claim that there are "titipan" articles in the MK Law is factually true in the narrow sense of implementation delegation, but misleading if used to suggest that the adjudicative function of the MK has been handed over to the executive. Meanwhile, the allegation of diploma manipulation remains a claim to be proven, not an established fact, and any court finding will be based on administrative records from the university and the ministry, not on public discourse.

Rating of the claim "Gibran was summoned to the third hearing": NOT ESTABLISHED — based on verification, what is confirmed is that a written application for a summons was submitted, not that the request was granted.