Jakarta’s Central District Court has become the latest arena for legal battles involving Indonesia’s Vice President Gibran Rakabuming Raka. On Monday, 8 December 2025, Gibran’s legal team submitted 14 pieces of documentary evidence to counter a multitrillion-rupiah civil lawsuit challenging the validity of his academic diploma and, by extension, the legality of his candidacy in the 2024 presidential election.

Image Illustration. Photo by Yogesh Pedamkar on Unsplash

The lawsuit, filed in August 2025 by a plaintiff identified as Subhan, accuses Gibran and the General Elections Commission (KPU) of committing an unlawful act by allegedly allowing his candidacy to proceed without proper verification of a diploma the plaintiff claims is invalid. The suit demands compensation of 125 trillion rupiah (roughly US$7.7 billion at recent exchange rates), to be paid to the state, underscoring how high the political and legal stakes have become.

Inside the 14 Pieces of Evidence

Following the court session, Gibran’s lead counsel, Dadang Herli Saputra, told reporters that the 14 documents submitted were “initial evidence” intended primarily to challenge the very authority of the Central Jakarta District Court to hear the case. Saputra said the evidence consists largely of statutory and regulatory materials as well as previous court decisions that, in the defense’s view, show that questions surrounding the validity of a vice president’s diploma and electoral eligibility belong either to election administration bodies or to higher courts, not to a general civil court. In essence, the team is not yet arguing about the diploma itself, but about whether this court is the right forum to adjudicate the dispute.

Significantly, the defense did not include Gibran’s diploma in Monday’s submission. Instead, the focus is on what Indonesian legal practitioners call kompetensi absolut—the question of whether a particular type of case should be heard by a specific court. Saputra stressed that the documents are designed to convince judges that the plaintiff’s claim falls outside the civil court’s jurisdiction and should therefore be dismissed at an early stage.

A Lawsuit Tied to the 2024 Presidential Election

The civil suit unfolds against the backdrop of one of the most contentious electoral cycles in Indonesia’s post-Reformasi history. On 20 March 2024, the KPU officially declared Prabowo Subianto and Gibran Rakabuming Raka the winners of the presidential election with 96,214,691 votes, or 58.59 percent of valid ballots cast nationwide. Their victory prompted legal challenges from rival tickets led by Anies Baswedan–Muhaimin Iskandar and Ganjar Pranowo–Mahfud MD, who alleged irregularities and structural advantages benefiting the Prabowo–Gibran campaign.

Those disputes were adjudicated by the Constitutional Court (MK) under the framework of post-election result disputes, known in Indonesia as Perselisihan Hasil Pemilihan Umum (PHPU). Under the 2017 Election Law, the MK has a maximum of 14 working days from the registration date of a PHPU case to issue a final ruling, a timeframe that has been criticized by some legal scholars as too short to fully examine complex allegations of systemic fraud. Even so, the MK ultimately rejected the core claims filed by the losing tickets and upheld the KPU’s result announcement. The new civil lawsuit over Gibran’s diploma thus represents a different front in a broader political and legal struggle that did not end with the MK’s decision.

Diploma Disputes and the Legacy of the 2024 MK Ruling

Questions about Gibran’s eligibility first surfaced when the Constitutional Court in October 2023 modified the age requirement for presidential and vice presidential candidates. The Court’s controversial decision allowed candidates under the usual minimum age of 40 to run if they had previously served as regional leaders, a ruling widely seen as opening the door for then–Solo mayor Gibran to become Prabowo’s running mate. That ruling—known as Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023—triggered fierce debate about judicial independence and dynastic politics in Indonesia.

In subsequent PHPU hearings in early 2024, a constitutional law expert called by the Prabowo–Gibran camp, Margarito Kamis, testified that Gibran’s registration as a vice-presidential candidate was legally valid even though the KPU had not yet updated its regulations to reflect the MK’s new age criteria. He argued that the MK’s decision directly amended the relevant provisions of the 2017 Election Law, making Gibran’s candidacy lawful regardless of whether the implementing regulations, known as PKPU, had caught up. The MK ultimately declined to disqualify the Prabowo–Gibran ticket, despite petitions from rival campaigns seeking such an outcome. Against this legal background, the new civil case in the Central Jakarta District Court attempts to reopen the question of Gibran’s qualifications from a different angle—this time through the authenticity and verification of his educational credentials.

Why Jurisdiction Matters: The Defense Strategy

For Gibran’s lawyers, the jurisdictional question is not a mere technicality but a central pillar of their defense. By foregrounding kompetensi absolut, they are effectively arguing that disputes linked to electoral administration should be addressed either through the KPU’s internal mechanisms, the Election Supervisory Body (Bawaslu), or—in cases of result disputes—directly at the Constitutional Court, rather than in ordinary civil courts.

Indonesia’s legal framework indeed assigns specific roles to each institution. The KPU is tasked with organizing elections and verifying candidate requirements under the 2017 Election Law, while Bawaslu oversees compliance and handles administrative complaints. Result disputes, including attempts to nullify an election outcome, fall within the jurisdiction of the MK. Civil courts typically address private-law disputes or state liability claims, and the defense appears determined to convince judges that the plaintiff’s attempt to frame the diploma controversy as a tort against the state stretches civil jurisdiction too far.

A 125 Trillion Rupiah Claim and Its Symbolism

The plaintiff’s demand for 125 trillion rupiah in compensation—an astronomical figure even by the standards of Indonesia’s large public budget—adds a dramatic dimension to the case. For context, total state spending in Indonesia’s 2024 budget is projected at around 3,325 trillion rupiah, meaning the claimed damages amount to nearly 4 percent of annual government expenditure. Legal experts interviewed by Indonesian media have suggested that such a large claim is likely intended to send a political message about the perceived gravity of the alleged wrongdoing rather than to represent a realistic expectation of financial recovery in court.

The case also comes at a time when questions of educational credentials and document verification have become a recurring theme in Indonesian politics. Previous controversies, including allegations over the academic records of high-ranking officials, have intensified public scrutiny of how institutions verify diplomas and other qualifications. Civil society groups have repeatedly called for stronger transparency mechanisms and more robust verification procedures in the electoral system.

Political Repercussions and Public Perception

Beyond the courtroom, the lawsuit feeds into a broader narrative about political dynasties and the concentration of power within a small circle of elites. Gibran is the son of President Joko Widodo (Jokowi), whose perceived involvement in backing his son’s vice-presidential bid was one of the key issues raised by opposition candidates during the PHPU proceedings. The Constitutional Court, however, ruled that the petitioners failed to substantiate claims that Jokowi’s conduct violated anti-nepotism laws or election regulations, highlighting gaps between public perception of undue influence and what can be legally proven in court.

Public reaction to the newest lawsuit has been mixed. Critics of the administration see it as a legitimate attempt to seek accountability and clarity over the vice president’s credentials. Supporters of the government, meanwhile, are likely to view it as a continuation of post-election grievance politics, waged in courtrooms after efforts to overturn the election result via the Constitutional Court failed. The 14 pieces of evidence submitted by Gibran’s legal team are thus not only a procedural step but part of a larger battle for public opinion in an era where legal documents and court hearings are dissected in real time on social media and television talk shows.

What Comes Next

In the coming weeks, the Central Jakarta District Court is expected to examine the admissibility and relevance of the 14 documents submitted by Gibran’s lawyers and to hear further arguments on jurisdiction. If the court agrees that it lacks kompetensi absolut, the case could be dismissed without entering into the substantive question of the diploma’s validity. If, however, the judges decide that the case can proceed, Indonesia may be headed toward an unprecedented trial that probes the educational credentials of a sitting vice president in detail.

Either outcome will resonate far beyond the courtroom. A dismissal would reinforce existing interpretations of electoral jurisdiction and underscore the primacy of the KPU and the MK in resolving disputes over candidate eligibility. A full trial, by contrast, would test the boundaries of civil litigation in politically charged cases and could set a new standard for how deeply Indonesian courts can probe the personal qualifications of elected officials.

For now, the 14 pieces of evidence submitted in Jakarta are only the opening move in what could become a defining legal struggle of Indonesia’s new political era—one that pits questions of formal legality, institutional jurisdiction and public trust against one another in a high-stakes courtroom contest.