TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
President must think, act neutral, court says
The Constitutional Court stated that “political endorsement” of certain candidates was problematic if it was done by the president as a representative of the state.
Change Size
Eight of nine justices at the Constitutional Court – excluding disgraced former chief justice Anwar Usman – read their decision in Jakarta on April 22 2024, which hears disputes over election and presidential election results. (AFP/Bay Ismoyo)
While refusing the demand from losing presidential candidate Anies Baswedan to cancel the results of the 2024 presidential election, the Constitutional Court said on Monday that President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo should have been neutral during the election process to look for his successor.
“President [Jokowi] should have thought, acted neutral in a contest to elect the president and vice president that will replace him as head of state and head of government,” said Justice Ridwan Mansyur, during his turn to read out the ruling.
The court delivered on Monday the ruling for presidential election dispute cases filed by losing presidential candidates Anies Baswedan and Ganjar Pranowo. The plaintiffs put forward a case about abuse of power and abuse of state resources and apparatus that had resulted in the victory of presidential-elect Prabowo Subianto.
The court eventually rejected Anies’ petition, citing unconvincing evidence to the allegations built in the lawsuit, while acknowledging potential ethics violations that the President, his ministers and regional heads might have committed due to the fact that Prabowo’s running mate is Jokowi’s eldest son, Gibran Rakabuming Raka.
It is also expected to reject Ganjar's petition as both lawsuits demand similar points, which include the annulment of Prabowo’s victory, the annulment of Prabowo-Gibran Rakabuming Raka’s candidacy and a revote without Gibran, whose candidacy had been considered a gross ethical violation in an earlier court ruling.
Three justices – Saldi Isra, Arief Hidayat and Enny Nurbaningsih –expressed their dissenting opinion for both petitions, as they acknowledged potential ethics violations by the President and the state apparatus regarding the use of state resources, especially related to social aid (Bansos) distributions during the campaign period.
