It will be an arduous legal battle and given the extreme demands from the losing candidates, which include a disqualification of president-elect Prabowo Subianto and a redo of the balloting, it will be a contentious one.

We will have to wait until May 21 for the final verdict. 

The legal teams behind Anies and Ganjar are confident that they have ample evidence and credible testimonies from witnesses which they claim could persuade the court to agree to the demand of holding an election rerun. 

Speaking at the hearing himself, Ganjar said that Prabowo should be disqualified on the grounds that the way he registered himself had violated election law in addition to ethical problems resulting from nepotism and "a coordinated abuse of power".

President Joko (Jokowi) Widodo’s "nepotism and abuse of power" regarding the election violated the constitution, they added, citing the candidacy of Jokowi's son Gibran Rakabuming Raka as well as the appointment of supporters in regional roles.

"Violations in the election are surprising to us because they destroyed our morals, which is an abuse of power," Ganjar told the court.

The nepotism charges refer to the conduct of the court's previous chief justice Anwar Usman. Late last year, the court's ethics council sacked Anwar after finding him guilty of committing a "gross violation" in orchestrating a verdict that enabled Gibran to run alongside Prabowo. 

Anwar became Jokowi’s brother-in-law after marrying the President's younger sister Idayati.

Anies on the other focused on the damage done by Jokowi's efforts to meddle with the election, saying that the Feb. 14 election showed signs of democratic backsliding toward an authoritarian past, and warned it could set a bad precedent.

"This practice will be perceived as normal, a habit," he told the Constitutional Court.

For the court, the hearing will be the perfect opportunity to restore its image, which was tarnished by its decision to lower the mandatory age requirement for vice presidential candidates, the verdict that allowed Gibran to join the race. He is now vice president-elect.

The Constitutional Court could at least improve its reputation if it can impartially rule on the complaints filed by the losing candidates. It does not matter if all sides can get behind its verdict, but the court justices must thoroughly hear their cases.

But the two plaintiffs’ request to annul the result of the Feb. 14 presidential election is unrealistic. Furthermore, a rerun of the election would be too costly for the nation. 

To prove that vote rigging, abuse of power and manipulation have been perpetrated by the government and the General Elections Commission (KPU) massively and systematically is too high a bar to clear.

But at the very least the court could make a considerate ruling, something that politicians and administrators of future elections could use as reference.

The court should be able to punish those who are guilty of election crimes while making sure that the verdict will not create fresh political instability for the country. The court should be able to force the guilty parties to pay the price for their error, but without annulling the election result.

Whatever the verdict in May, everyone in the country should accept it. And again, if all justices in the court hear the complaints thoroughly and impartially, we have reason to believe that they will have served justice for all.