Political parties in the House of Representatives have suddenly fallen silent over the Constitutional Court's ruling on the educational qualifications of Vice President Gibran Rakabuming Raka. This is despite several lawmakers having previously met with civil society groups calling for an inquiry motion to investigate the controversy surrounding Gibran's diploma.

The court did not annul Gibran's candidacy or disqualify him. A lawsuit challenging the candidacy requirements for the 2024 presidential and vice-presidential election was declared inadmissible because the plaintiffs lacked legal standing. However, constitutional justices noted the absence of convincing evidence in the form of a valid foreign diploma, certificate, or degree that could be recognized as equivalent to Gibran's senior high school diploma – the minimum educational requirement for candidacy. The court said it had no authority to annul or remove someone from office. As a result, the legal implications of the ruling remain unclear.

This is where the political responsibility of the parties is put to the test. They need not rush to declare Gibran guilty of breaking the law or push for his impeachment. Articles 7A and 7B of the 1945 Constitution stipulate the mechanism for removing the president and vice president from office: proceedings in the House, a review by the Constitutional Court, and a decision by the People's Consultative Assembly. But legal caution is no excuse for abandoning oversight. The parties should examine the case, summon the institutions involved, and ensure that the Constitutional Court's findings are followed up. In reality, some party elites have instead called for the controversy to be buried "for the sake of national stability."

The stability argument obscures a bigger problem: the parties' willingness to hold power to account when a case involves those close to the Presidential Palace. Hiding behind legal proceedings in the State Administrative Court and the Supreme Court is no excuse for shirking responsibility. The judiciary and parliamentary oversight serve different functions. After the Supreme Court granted an appeal concerning Gibran's diploma equivalency certificate, the parties supporting President Prabowo Subianto need to explain their position.

Coalition calculations appear to matter more than voters' voices in determining the parties' stance. This pattern recalls Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way's concept of competitive authoritarianism: a system that retains elections, parliament, and courts, but in which the playing field is uneven. Democratic institutions remain in place, but elite dominance tames their critical capacity. Oversight weakens as political actors choose to lie low for the sake of convenience. Parties weigh the risks of opposing the Presidential Palace, including the consequences for political resources and the careers of their elites.

The House is not a court. But when irregularities emerge in the fulfillment of the qualifications for public office, parliament is obliged to ensure that the public receives answers grounded in legal facts. This controversy is not merely a matter of administrative documents, it is also a test of the relationship between political parties, parliament, and the executive branch.

Democracy is measured by the willingness of elected representatives to hold those in power to account, especially when oversight threatens coalition ties. Parties derive their mandate from the ballot box, not the Presidential Palace. Loyalty to a coalition must not erase the obligation to ensure that public officials meet the requirements for office. The Constitutional Court's findings demand an answer: will the parties exercise their authority, or allow oversight to recede for the sake of harmony with those in power?

– Read the complete story in Tempo English Magazine

Source: https://en.tempo.co/read/2122962/the-house-falls-silent-after-the-ruling-on-gibra