MK Finds No Evidence of Gibran’s Diploma, Why Did It Not Result in Disqualification?

The Constitutional Court (MK) did not find convincing evidence that Gibran Rakabuming Raka possessed a diploma, certificate, or degree from abroad that could serve as the basis for equivalency with an educational level of at least senior high school or its equivalent.

However, that finding did not result in the annulment of his candidacy or the removal of Gibran from office as Vice President.

This was the essence of Decision Number 01/PHPU.PRES-XXIV/2026, read out on 6 October 2026. The case was filed by the Independent Election Monitoring Committee (KIPP), Partai Ummat, Denny Indrayana, and a number of citizens who challenged the validity of Gibran’s educational qualification when he became a vice-presidential candidate in the 2024 Election.

What is noteworthy is that the MK did not simply declare the petition inadmissible on procedural grounds. In its reasoning, the MK instead examined Gibran’s educational documents and stated that it found no evidence demonstrating that Gibran possessed a diploma or similar document proving that he had completed education abroad equivalent to senior high school or its equivalent.

What Was Actually Being Challenged?

The educational requirements for presidential and vice-presidential candidates are stipulated in Article 169 letter r of Law Number 7 of 2017 concerning General Elections (Election Law). This provision requires candidates to have completed at least senior high school, madrasah aliyah, vocational high school, vocational madrasah aliyah, or another equivalent school.

These requirements are subsequently evidenced in the nomination process as regulated under Article 227 letter l of the Election Law.

The Petitioners challenged whether Gibran actually possessed educational documents satisfying those requirements when he was designated as a vice-presidential candidate.

During the proceedings, the issue subsequently focused on Equivalency Certificate Number 9149/D.D1/KS/2019. The Government explained that an equivalency certificate is not a new diploma issued by the Indonesian Government. The certificate is an administrative document stating the equivalency of foreign education within the national education system. The original educational documents remain those issued by the foreign educational institution.

However, when examining the documents underlying the issuance of the certificate, the MK stated that it did not find a diploma, certificate, or degree proving that Gibran had completed the relevant level of education.

The documents found included, among others, a certificate of attendance, academic records, and explanation of grades. According to the MK, those documents demonstrated attendance and academic records, but did not constitute proof of graduation or completion of education.

If the Requirement Was Challenged, Why Was Gibran Not Disqualified?

The Petitioners asked the MK to declare Gibran’s candidacy defective from the outset, annul the KPU’s determination concerning his candidacy, and annul his inauguration as Vice President.

However, the issue was not merely whether the MK found a problem with Gibran’s educational documents. Who filed the case and when the case was filed also determined whether the MK could examine it.

Previously, the issue of Gibran’s candidacy had indeed been brought before the MK. In 2024, the Anies Baswedan-Muhaimin Iskandar and Ganjar Pranowo-Mahfud MD pairs each filed a Presidential and Vice-Presidential Election Result Dispute (PHPU) as candidate pairs. In their petitions, both also requested that the Prabowo-Gibran pair be disqualified. However, the arguments submitted at that time did not concern the validity of Gibran’s diploma or his educational qualification.

The difference is that the 2026 case was filed by KIPP, Partai Ummat, Denny Indrayana, and a number of individuals, rather than by candidate pairs participating in the 2024 Presidential Election. Accordingly, as regulated under Article 74 paragraph (1) letter b of the Constitutional Court Law and Article 475 paragraph (1) of the Election Law, the Petitioners did not fall within the category of parties entitled to file a PHPU concerning the President and Vice President.

The MK subsequently granted the Respondent’s objection insofar as it concerned legal standing and declared the petition inadmissible.

The matter becomes more interesting because the 2026 case raised an issue different from the previous dispute. Whereas in 2024 the issue concerned the process and validity of Gibran’s candidacy in the context known to the parties at that time, the 2026 case specifically challenged the evidence of Gibran’s education. The Petitioners even stated that they had only obtained the documents relating to the educational requirement in 2026.

This is where a more fundamental legal issue arises: if a candidate pair possessing legal standing never challenged the educational requirement in the 2024 PHPU proceedings, while the parties subsequently bringing the issue before the MK do not have legal standing as PHPU Petitioners, through what legal mechanism can the issue be reviewed?

This question becomes increasingly relevant because, in the 2026 case, the MK stated that it found no convincing evidence that Gibran possessed a diploma, certificate, or degree from abroad that could serve as the basis for equivalency with an educational level of at least senior high school or its equivalent. However, because of the issue of legal standing, the Court could not impose the consequence of annulment or disqualification of Gibran as requested.

Then, Who Is Responsible?

This is where the decision leaves a larger issue unresolved.

The MK stated that matters concerning the validity and fulfillment of the requirements for presidential and vice-presidential candidates fall within the domain of institutions vested with the authority to assess them under the 1945 Constitution and the laws and regulations.

The question then arises: what is the legal mechanism when such an issue only becomes known or can only be proven after the candidate has been inaugurated?

This is because there is a distinction between disqualification of a candidate and removal from office of an officeholder.

As long as a person remains a candidate, issues concerning fulfillment of the nomination requirements may result in annulment or disqualification. However, once inaugurated, that person is no longer subject to the legal regime applicable to a candidate, but rather becomes the holder of a constitutional office.

This change in status is important because the applicable legal mechanism also changes. This was even conveyed by an expert witness from the KPU in the proceedings: after inauguration, the legal issue is no longer whether a person is eligible to be a candidate, but whether there are constitutional grounds for removing that person from office as Vice President.

The Requirement Is Clear, But Who Enforces It?

This decision demonstrates a gap in the electoral legal framework. The Election Law has established educational requirements for presidential and vice-presidential candidates, but it is not yet clear what mechanism can be used when fulfillment of those requirements is only challenged after inauguration.

In this case, the MK stated that it found no convincing evidence of a diploma or document demonstrating that Gibran had completed foreign education that could be deemed equivalent to senior high school or its equivalent. However, that finding did not result in any consequence for his position because the case was brought through the PHPU mechanism by parties lacking legal standing as Petitioners.

If the nomination requirements are mandatory, there should likewise be a clear mechanism for reviewing compliance with those requirements and imposing consequences when those requirements are subsequently challenged after the election has been completed. Without such a mechanism, there is a gap between the requirements that must be fulfilled and the effectiveness of their enforcement.