Golkar Weighs Inquiry Into Gibran Diploma Dispute After Civil Coalition Meeting

Golkar's faction in Indonesia's House of Representatives is still weighing whether to use its inquiry right over questions about Vice President Gibran Rakabuming Raka's diploma and education qualifications, according to jejakperistiwa.id. The position emerged after the faction met the Aliansi Kolektif Sipil, or AKSI, at the DPR building in Jakarta on Monday, Oct. 12, 2026. No final decision has been reached on whether the proposal will proceed through a parliamentary inquiry or another constitutional mechanism available to lawmakers.

AKSI used the audience to press Golkar for an official legislative response, the outlet reported. Its main request was that the DPR take a formal stance on the public dispute over Gibran's education documents and whether he met the requirements for the vice presidency. The coalition suggested that lawmakers could open an inquiry to investigate the matter or consider a motion expressing an opinion if there were sufficient grounds. Golkar has not approved such a move; it is still at the stage of receiving, reviewing and considering the proposal.

Ahmad Doli Kurnia, a Golkar lawmaker and deputy general chairman of the party's central board, said the inquiry proposal would be considered as a follow-up to a Constitutional Court ruling on the vice-presidential education requirement. He said the issue needed careful discussion in light of developments and public aspirations, according to jejakperistiwa.id. Doli added that the DPR must accommodate input from different groups and pass it to faction and party leaders. He stressed that no final decision had been made.

Doli also pointed to limits on parliament's authority. He said the DPR cannot constitutionally review or overturn a Constitutional Court ruling, and that its role instead could be to facilitate election organizers in giving a detailed explanation of the validity of Gibran's diploma and the examination process. He said documents supporting that validity should be shown if they exist, and that open explanations from election officials and other relevant parties would help answer public questions, reduce speculation and prevent the controversy from lingering without clarity.

AKSI argued that Golkar's position is pivotal because the party holds 102 seats and sits in the governing coalition, making its stance important to whether the dispute receives a formal follow-up in the DPR. The coalition said an inquiry would allow lawmakers to seek explanations, gather information and assess the issue openly under parliamentary powers. It also stressed that an inquiry or an expression-of-opinion motion would not automatically remove the vice president, but would be a stage in a constitutional process with its own procedures and requirements. AKSI's four demands were presented during the audience as part of its push for an institutional response, the outlet reported.

The dispute traces back to the education requirements for vice-presidential candidates in the 2024 election. The Constitutional Court, in a ruling read by Chief Justice Suhartoyo on Oct. 6, 2026, declined to hear the merits of a lawsuit over the validity of those requirements because the petitioners, including Denny Indrayana and 11 others, lacked legal standing and were not official participants in the 2024 presidential election. The ruling noted that no evidence of Gibran's high-school-level diploma was included, but the court did not declare the document invalid; it only addressed standing and did not examine the substance of all claims. In the proceedings, Denny alleged a defect in meeting the minimum SLTA or equivalent education requirement, citing a change to KPU Regulation No. 19 of 2023 through Article 18(3) that he said exempted overseas-educated candidates from showing proof of high school completion. He also mentioned an equivalence certificate allegedly issued by the Education and Culture Ministry in less than 24 hours on Aug. 6, 2019, while saying the underlying document had not been proven; those were petitioner arguments, not established facts.