The Jakarta Post
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.
Popular Reads
Top Results
No results found. Please check your search term and try again
Can't find what you're looking for?
View all search results
Popular Reads
Top Results
No results found. Please check your search term and try again
Can't find what you're looking for?
View all search resultsConstitutional Court’s decision: Rule of law or rule of court?
By airing doubts about Gibran’s credentials while throwing out the case on standing, the Constitutional Court has committed the ultimate judicial sin: letting its rhetoric intervene where its decree dared not tread.
Change text size
Gift Premium Articles
to Anyone
Share the best of The Jakarta Post with friends, family, or colleagues. As a subscriber, you can gift 3 to 5 articles each month that anyone can read—no subscription needed!
Set as preferred source
Chief Justice Suhartoyo (center) reads out the nine-member bench’s ruling on a petition challenging Vice President Gibran Rakabuming Raka’s eligibility for contesting the 2024 presidential election on Oct. 6, 2026, at the Constitutional Court in Central Jakarta. (JP/Iqro Rinaldi)
I
n the Mahabharata, Draupadi asks her husband Yudhishthira whether he, having lost himself in a game of dice, still possessed the authority to wager her. Bhishma, revered for his wisdom, cannot answer, paralyzed because dharma appears to pull in conflicting directions.
The scene unsettles any easy equation between personal wisdom and statesmanship: An elder’s reputation cannot resolve the harder question of what his office requires him to do, or forbids him from leaving undone.
Supporters of Vice President Gibran Rakabuming Raka should be cautious about celebrating the Constitutional Court’s ruling on his educational credentials. A petition declared inadmissible for lack of standing poses a fundamentally different question than one rejected on the merits.
Having indicated that statutory filing deadlines might be set aside under exceptional circumstances, the court has left open whether a competing ticket from the 2024 election, meaning parties that unquestionably possess standing, might revive the controversy. Whether an eligible pair chooses to do so remains to be seen.
The petition filed by Denny Indrayana and fellow applicants foundered on standing, yet the court nevertheless evaluated the evidentiary record surrounding Gibran’s foreign degree equivalency. While leaving any formal determination to administrative authorities, the court openly voiced skepticism regarding the documentation.
Gibran thus benefits from the formal disposition, while his critics walk away with judicial dicta that fortify their political and legal narrative.
Any future challenge would still face steep hurdles regarding jurisdiction, finality and the narrow scope of equitable exceptions to legal deadlines. Nonetheless, the controversy has now acquired institutional weight.
