The Controversy of Rights and Benefits of Former Vice President Gibran

The strongest moral objection is directed towards rights that are appreciative in nature, such as pensions, allowances, housing, and vehicles, as these are all intended as rewards for service. This differentiation is important so that critique does not turn into punishment.

The momentum for reform is indeed available. The Constitutional Court has ordered lawmakers to reorganize the financial rights of leaders and former leaders of state institutions within two years.

An opinion piece in Kompas asserts that this ruling encourages a fairer pension system for officials, attuned to the state's finances, and no longer applicable for life (Kompas, 30/3/2026).

Law Number 7 of 1978 should also be reviewed. Appreciative rights need to be made proportional to the term of office, accompanied by a forfeiture clause should a court ruling state that candidacy requirements have not been met from the outset.

Outside the legislative path, there lies an ethical avenue open for Gibran himself. The law allows former vice presidents the freedom to decline protective services, and a similar attitude could be taken towards other rights, for instance, by allocating part of his pension for public interests.

Such gestures would bolster his claim that he resigned in the nation's interest.

The law has indeed provided him with rights. However, the law enacted nearly half a century ago does not always align with today’s sense of justice.

If an ordinary job applicant loses their rights due to invalid documents, why does the state reward a lifetime pension to an official whose candidacy was annulled by a court?