The Presidential Election Has Concluded and Gibran Has Been Inaugurated. Can the Constitutional Court Reopen the Case?

Almost two years after the 2024 Presidential Election concluded, questions have once again been raised before the Constitutional Court (MK) concerning Gibran Rakabuming Raka’s educational qualification.

The petition was filed on 10 September 2026 and registered under Number 01/PHPU.PRES-XXIV/2026 as a dispute concerning the results of the 2024 General Election for President and Vice President (PHPU). The preliminary hearing was held on 21 September 2026.

However, this case is not merely about whether Gibran’s educational documents are valid. The more fundamental issue is: can an alleged failure to satisfy the candidacy requirements, which is only challenged after the election has concluded, still be examined through a PHPU proceeding, when the election results have been determined and the Vice President has already been inaugurated?

Not Merely a Question of a Diploma

The Petitioners challenge Gibran’s fulfillment of the educational requirement when he registered as a vice-presidential candidate in the 2024 Presidential Election.

Article 169 letter r of Law Number 7 of 2017 concerning General Elections (General Election Law) requires presidential and vice-presidential candidates to have, at a minimum, completed senior secondary school or an equivalent level of education.

In their petition, the Petitioners question the documents used to establish compliance with that requirement, including the certificate of equivalency for completion of vocational secondary school (SMK). They argue that the certificate should have been supported by the educational documents forming the basis for its issuance.

However, at this stage, this remains an allegation by the Petitioners. The Constitutional Court has not declared that Gibran failed to satisfy the educational requirement.

Accordingly, the legal issue is not merely “is Gibran’s diploma authentic?”, but rather whether, when registering as a vice-presidential candidate, Gibran had satisfied and could substantiate the educational requirement prescribed by law.

KPU Regulations Are Also Being Challenged

The issues raised by the Petitioners also concern the rules used by the General Elections Commission (KPU) to verify educational requirements.

They challenge Article 18 paragraph (3) of KPU Regulation Number 19 of 2023 concerning the exemption from the requirement to provide proof of completion of senior secondary school for candidates who attended school abroad and already possess proof of completion of higher education. According to the Petitioners, this provision differs from the candidacy rules applicable to the previous Presidential Election.

However, the existence of that provision does not, in itself, establish that a violation occurred. What remains to be examined is whether the provision was lawfully applicable to the 2024 candidacy process, how the KPU applied it, and whether the documents used by Gibran satisfied the requirements under that provision.

Accordingly, the issue concerns not only what documents Gibran possessed, but also which rules the KPU relied upon in determining that the requirement had been satisfied. Detik also reported that the Petitioners based their petition on this issue.

Why Was the Case Only Filed in 2026?

The next issue concerns the timing of the filing.

The Petitioners explain that information concerning Gibran’s educational documents was only obtained after they went through a public information dispute process. The decision of the Public Information Commission concerning the request for the documents was read out on 11 March 2026. Subsequently, the certificate of equivalency was obtained from the Information and Documentation Management Officer (PPID) of the Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education on 16 April 2026.

This means that the Public Information Commission did not determine whether Gibran satisfied the requirements for a vice-presidential candidate. That mechanism concerned access to information. The documents subsequently obtained were used by the Petitioners to support their allegations concerning fulfillment of the educational requirement.

This chronology is important because it forms the basis of the argument as to why the case was only filed in 2026. Nevertheless, a legal question remains: can the discovery or acquisition of new evidence reopen the filing deadline for a PHPU proceeding that has already expired?

Can the Constitutional Court Still Examine the Case?

PHPU proceedings are subject to strict time limits. Their purpose is to provide legal certainty regarding election results and to ensure that disputes do not remain open indefinitely after a new government has been formed.

Because this case was filed almost two years after the 2024 Presidential Election, the initial issue is not immediately whether the educational documents can be proven, but whether the petition is admissible and may be examined through the PHPU mechanism.

The Constitutional Court has indeed issued Constitutional Court Regulation Number 1 of 2026, which regulates the stages for handling petitions concerning disputes over the results of the 2024 Presidential and Vice-Presidential General Election submitted in 2026. However, the existence of this procedural framework does not automatically resolve questions concerning jurisdiction, filing deadlines, legal standing, or the subject matter of the case.

In other words, the existence of a procedure for handling a case does not necessarily mean that the substance of every case filed after the deadline may automatically be examined.

If the Case Proceeds to the Merits, What Must Be Proven?

If the Constitutional Court determines that the case may proceed to further examination, the next focus will be the KPU’s verification process.

What must be examined is not only Gibran’s educational documents, but also the documents relied upon by the KPU, the legal basis for their use, and how the verification was conducted during the candidacy process.

The question then becomes: were the documents used in 2024 indeed insufficient to establish compliance with the educational requirement, or were they deemed sufficient under the rules applicable at that time?

If the Requirement Was Not Satisfied, What Are the Legal Consequences?

The next issue concerns the legal consequences.

The Petitioners request that the Constitutional Court disqualify Gibran and annul his inauguration as Vice President. They argue that the issue constitutes a defect at the candidacy stage, rather than the removal of a person who has lawfully assumed office. Accordingly, in their view, the appropriate mechanism is disqualification through an election dispute proceeding, rather than removal from office through a dismissal or impeachment mechanism.

However, this argument remains subject to examination by the Constitutional Court. This is because there is a distinction between identifying a defect in the candidacy process and determining the legal consequences for an office that has already been held.

In their petitum, the Petitioners also request the annulment of several KPU decisions and ask that the mechanism under Article 8 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution be implemented to fill the office of Vice President.

Conclusion

Ultimately, this case is not merely about whether Gibran’s educational documents are valid. The central issue is whether an alleged failure to satisfy the candidacy requirements, which is only challenged after the election has concluded, may still be examined through a PHPU proceeding when the filing deadline has expired and the Vice President has already been inaugurated.

If the Constitutional Court accepts the case for examination, the next issues will be whether Gibran satisfied the educational requirement at the time of his candidacy and whether the KPU conducted the verification in accordance with the rules applicable at that time. However, if a problem is found, the legal consequences for the election results and the Vice-Presidential office that has already been functioning must still be determined.

Accordingly, this case brings together three issues at once: satisfaction of the candidacy requirements, the time limits and jurisdiction applicable to election disputes, and legal certainty concerning election results that have already been finalized.