JurnalPost.com In recent years, the debate over the diplomas of public officials has remained a focal point for the Indonesian public. Various lawsuits, allegations, university clarifications, and information disputes demonstrate that this issue is no longer merely about an individual's educational documents, but also concerns the transparency and accountability of state governance.
Unfortunately, public debate is often trapped in the question of who is accused of forging documents or who must prove their authenticity. Yet, there is a legal question that is equally important: to what extent does the public have the right to know the documents used by an individual as a requirement to hold public office?
In a democratic system, the public not only has the right to elect leaders but also the right to oversee the administration of government. This oversight includes ensuring that public officials have met the administrative requirements stipulated by legislation.
In my view, when someone has assumed a public office and obtained the authority to act in the public interest, there should be a mechanism that allows the public to examine their qualification documents in a legitimate and accountable manner.
The problem is that demands for diploma disclosure often clash with arguments regarding confidentiality and personal data protection. This is where the debate arises between the public's right to information and an individual's right to maintain their privacy.
The Right to Information and the Limits of Confidentiality
Constitutionally, Article 28F of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia guarantees the right of every person to communicate and obtain information. This guarantee is reinforced by Law Number 14 of 2008 concerning Public Information Openness (UU KIP).
Article 2 paragraph (1) of the UU KIP asserts that all public information is essentially open and accessible to users. Meanwhile, Article 2 paragraph (2) stipulates that exempted information must be strictly and narrowly defined.
These provisions show that openness is a fundamental principle, while confidentiality must have a clear legal basis.
However, this does not mean that all personal information of officials can be disclosed without limitation.
Article 17 letter h number 5 of the UU KIP provides protection for an individual's personal records related to formal and non-formal education. Furthermore, Law Number 27 of 2022 concerning Personal Data Protection regulates the protection of an individual's personal data.
Interestingly, Article 18 paragraph (2) letter b of the UU KIP also stipulates that information related to a person's position in public office may fall outside the exemption categories referred to in Article 17 letters g and h.
This means there is legal room to consider the disclosure of information related to public office, although its application must still consider the context and applicable regulations.
Article 19 of the UU KIP even requires the Information and Documentation Management Officer (PPID) to conduct a consequence test before designating information as exempted.
Based on these provisions, I am of the view that confidentiality should not be used as an automatic excuse to withhold all information regarding an official's educational qualifications.
If a diploma is used as a document for job requirements, the public should have the opportunity to submit an access request through available legal mechanisms.
The Joko Widodo Diploma Polemic and the Issue of Public Access
An example that illustrates the complexity of this issue is the polemic surrounding the diploma of the 7th President of the Republic of Indonesia, Joko Widodo.
On April 15, 2025, Gadjah Mada University (UGM) provided clarification that Joko Widodo was an alumnus of the UGM Faculty of Forestry who began his education in 1980 and graduated on November 5, 1985.
A day later, on April 16, 2025, Joko Widodo showed his educational diplomas, from elementary school to university, to a number of journalists at his residence in Solo.
However, the journalists were not permitted to take photos or document the diplomas.
This event raised questions about the boundary between showing a document in person and providing access to information that can be examined by the public more broadly.
In my opinion, showing documents to a few people is indeed a form of providing information. However, in the context of public office requirement documents, this mechanism does not necessarily provide the same opportunity for the public to conduct an independent examination.
Nevertheless, the restriction on documentation cannot be used as a basis to conclude that the diploma is fake. The issue of document authenticity must be distinguished from the issue of information transparency because both have different mechanisms of proof and legal consequences.
Central Information Commission Ruling and the Development of Diploma Transparency
An important development occurred on January 13, 2026, when the Central Information Commission ruled on an information dispute between Bonatua Silalahi and the General Elections Commission (KPU) of the Republic of Indonesia.
Through case Number 074/X/KIP-PSI/2025, the Central Information Commission declared that the copy of Joko Widodo's diploma used as a requirement for his presidential candidacy in the 2014 and 2019 elections is open public information.
The Commission Panel also ordered the KPU to provide a copy of the document to the applicant after the decision attained permanent legal force.
The next development occurred on February 9, 2026. The KPU handed over a legalized, unredacted copy of the diploma to Bonatua Silalahi as a follow-up to the decision.
This event shows that the right to information transparency does not stop at normative debate but can be realized through dispute resolution mechanisms available under Indonesian law.
Even so, it must be understood that the decision relates to the copy of the diploma in the presidential candidacy file held by the KPU. The decision cannot be immediately interpreted as an obligation for every official to hand over their original diploma to anyone without procedure.
In my view, this is precisely where the problem needs to be addressed. The state must have a clear, easily accessible information request mechanism that provides certainty regarding which documents can be opened and what personal information must remain protected.
The public also needs to understand that the right to obtain information does not mean the freedom to disseminate all personal data without considering legal provisions.
Transparency Does Not Have to Erase Privacy
Fundamentally, information transparency and personal data protection are not two principles that must always be pitted against each other.
Both can coexist if the government and state institutions apply the rules consistently.
For example, information regarding whether or not an official has met educational requirements can be a matter of public interest. However, other personal data that is irrelevant to job requirements must still be treated in accordance with data protection provisions.
Therefore, I view that the policy on the disclosure of job requirement documents needs to be built on the principles of proportionality, legal certainty, and accountability.
Institutions that verify official requirements must be able to explain their examination process. If the public submits a document request, the institution must also provide a decision based on applicable rules, rather than just a rejection without adequate explanation.
On the other hand, the public has a responsibility to use information correctly and not turn document disclosure into a means of spreading unproven allegations.
Ultimately, public office is not just a position that grants authority, but also a responsibility to account for the fulfillment of job requirements to the public.
If a diploma is used to prove an individual's administrative eligibility to hold public office, why is the public not given an adequate opportunity to access and examine those documents through clear legal mechanisms?
This question needs to be answered through a transparent information disclosure system, not merely through debates about confidentiality.
Transparency does not mean erasing all of an official's privacy rights. Conversely, transparency demands that every restriction on information access has a legal basis and a justifiable reason.
The public has the right to oversee, public officials have the obligation to account for the fulfillment of their job requirements, and the state must ensure the availability of fair information disclosure mechanisms.
Because public trust should not be built only through statements, but also through transparency, proof, and accountability that can be tested.
Comments 0
Write a Comment Share your response