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 resultsThe House’s right to act and the political agenda of 2029
The controversy over Gibran’s credentials is no longer just about a diploma: It is a defining test of whether the national legislature still checks executive power or merely bows to it.
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!
Vice President Gibran Rakabuming Raka looks toward the central dais on May 20, 2026, prior to President Prabowo Subianto's speech on the macroeconomic framework to lawmakers at the Senayan Legislative Complex in Central Jakarta. (AFP/ Bay Ismoyo)
T
he Constitutional Court’s ruling on the educational qualifications of Vice President Gibran Rakabuming Raka should not be reduced to a dispute over a diploma. The larger question is how the state should address a controversy over the legitimacy of public office when the legal avenue pursued can no longer alter an election result.
In its reasoning, the court stated it found no convincing evidence that Gibran’s foreign educational credentials could serve as a basis for a senior high school equivalency. Yet it did not annul his candidacy or inauguration, citing, among other factors, the petitioners’ lack of legal standing and the procedural inappropriateness of an election dispute mechanism after inauguration.
The ruling should not be misrepresented as an unequivocal finding that Gibran lacks a high school education; however, neither does it put the controversy to rest.
This is where the House of Representatives must take the initiative. A special inquiry committee (Pansus) could examine the unresolved questions, summon explanations from relevant institutions and clarify the constitutional implications. The objective would be neither to unseat Gibran nor to preempt judicial processes, but rather to establish the facts, delineate institutional responsibilities and ensure that matters of genuine public concern receive transparent, accountable answers.
Instead, the House remains passive.
To borrow a soccer analogy: A video assistant referee (VAR) has flagged a potential violation, yet no player steps forward to take the penalty. Everyone appears to be waiting for a signal from the sidelines. In Indonesian politics, such a signal is routinely expected to emanate from the seat of executive power rather than from a legislature acting on its own constitutional authority.
This hesitation is inseparable from the oversized coalition supporting President Prabowo Subianto. When the overwhelming majority of legislative factions belong to the governing camp, legislative oversight inevitably takes a back seat to preserving coalition unity.
