Is There Still a Way to Prove Gibran's Diploma?

IS THERE still a way to prove Gibran's diploma? Although Gibran Rakabuming Raka has resigned as Vice President, the legality of the educational requirements during the registration for the 2024 presidential election still needs legal certainty.

Previously, Gibran expressed his desire to continue fighting to prove his educational documents through the courts.

The Supreme Court (MA), through its ruling Number 742 K/TUN/2026, has annulled Gibran's educational equivalency letter. The Coordinating Minister for Law, Human Rights, and Immigration, Yusril Ihza Mahendra, emphasized that the MA's ruling is final.

In my view, the MA's ruling presents a legal issue that extends beyond ordinary administrative disputes.

This ruling not only concerns the validity of documents but also the relationship between legal truth, educational facts, and the constitutional legitimacy of state officials.

There is a question that has not received enough attention: does a court ruling that annuls administrative evidence simultaneously negate a person's right to prove their actual educational facts?

This question is vital because a rule of law not only obliges the state to ensure the certainty of court decisions but also to provide a legitimate space for proof without disregarding the binding nature of those decisions.

Finality of Decisions and Material Truth

The MA, in its ruling on October 30, 2026, annulled the Letter of the Director General of Primary and Secondary Education Number 9149/D.D1/KS/2019 dated August 6, 2019.

The MA's considerations highlighted that the documents certificate of attendance, academic records, and explanation of grades were insufficient to prove completion of education at a certain level.

The MA also assessed that issuing equivalency without adequate proof of graduation violates the principle of administrative diligence.

Doctrinally, this ruling should be respected based on the principle of res judicata pro veritate habetur. Disputes that have been adjudicated and have the force of law should not be reopened through the repetition of the same matter.

However, there is a fundamental difference between annulling an administrative decision and definitively determining that someone has never completed their education.

Annulment of the equivalency letter means that the administrative basis used does not meet legal requirements.

Nevertheless, this conclusion does not automatically negate the possibility of the existence of other graduation documents that have never been examined.

Here lies the relevance of Hans Kelsen's thoughts in Pure Theory of Law (1960). The validity of a legal act is determined by its conformity with a higher norm.