One Ruling, One Big Question

ALMOST two years after Gibran Rakabuming Raka was inaugurated as Vice President of the Republic of Indonesia, questions regarding his educational qualifications have again been brought before the Constitutional Court.

On September 10, 2026, several parties filed a dispute regarding the results of the 2024 Presidential Election, questioning the validity of Gibran's educational qualifications at the time of his nomination.

This case was subsequently registered under Number 01/PHPU.PRES-XXIV/2026.

The case did not merely linger in administrative limbo. The Court examined the petition, heard the parties' statements, reviewed evidence, and included testimonies from the Ministry of Education and Culture as well as education attaches from the Indonesian Embassies in Singapore and Australia.

Following these hearings, on October 6, 2026, the Court issued a ruling declaring the petitioners’ request inadmissible due to legal standing issues.

However, a crucial aspect of the ruling should not be overlooked.

In the hearings, the Court stated it found no convincing evidence indicating that Gibran possessed a diploma, certificate, or degree from abroad that could be equated with at least a senior high school education or its equivalent.

This finding did not result in Gibran's disqualification, as the Court determined that the petitioners lacked legal standing to request such action.

Herein lies a significant question that is far more intriguing than merely identifying who won or lost.

When Procedure Becomes Decisive

Interestingly, the Court did not outright dismiss the case solely because the petition was filed well past the established deadline.

The petition was submitted in September 2026, while the normal deadline for contesting the results of the 2024 Presidential Election had already expired in March 2024.

However, the Court assessed that there were special circumstances related to the fulfillment of candidate requirements, rendering objections regarding the deadline unjustified under the law.

This stance reveals that the Court actually viewed there was a matter significant enough to scrutinize.

In fact, the existence of these special circumstances served as grounds for the Court to consider the substance of the case before determining issues related to the timeline and the legal standing of the petitioners.

Thus, this case was not merely dismissed due to its late filing.