JAKARTA, Oct 7 – Indonesia’s Constitutional Court has dismissed a petition challenging Gibran Rakabuming Raka’s educational eligibility as a vice-presidential candidate in the 2024 election, despite finding no convincing evidence of a foreign qualification proving he had completed senior high school or its equivalent.
In a statement on Tuesday’s ruling, the court cited Constitutional Justice Adies Kadir as saying the case could no longer be substantively resolved as a presidential election results dispute because Vice-President Gibran was no longer a vice-presidential candidate.
“His status as a candidate ended when the elected ticket was inaugurated and sworn in as vice president on October 20, 2024, which also marked the end of the stages of the 2024 presidential election,” the court said.
The court said it could not “annul or disqualify” Gibran, the son of former president Joko Widodo, from office as requested by the petitioners.
Chief Justice Suhartoyo declared the petition inadmissible after the court found that the petitioners lacked legal standing, as presidential election results disputes could only be brought by presidential and vice-presidential candidate pairs.
All nine justices supported the decision, with no dissenting opinion recorded.
The petition was brought by the Independent Election Monitoring Committee (KIPP), the Ummat Party, constitutional law expert Denny Indrayana and six individuals, who argued that Gibran had not met the educational requirement for a vice-presidential candidate in the 2024 election.
Constitutional Justice Arsul Sani said testimony from the Director-General of Primary and Secondary Education showed that no diploma, certificate or degree had been submitted to support Gibran’s foreign education equivalency certificate.
Instead, the supporting documents comprised a certificate of attendance, academic records and an explanation of grades, which the court considered proof of attendance rather than graduation or completion.
Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih said the court had the formal authority to examine and decide the case because the petition sought to annul the General Elections Commission’s Decision No. 360 of 2024 on the presidential election results.
Enny said the court had a responsibility to establish the material truth, particularly as the law did not clearly specify which institution had the authority to resolve such disputes after an elected candidate had been inaugurated.
