Democracy Has Rules and a Timetable

There comes a time when a nation must ensure that political contests have an end point. Elections are held, objections are examined, rulings are delivered, and then the government gets to work.

That certainty allows people to organise their lives and the state to fulfil its responsibilities. If every result is continually treated as provisional, it is society as a whole that ultimately loses its bearings.

That is why I take seriously Denny Indrayana’s statement that, if Gibran is not removed, President Prabowo could instead face removal.

When such a statement is made by a constitutional law expert, the public may accept it as an explanation of how the Constitution works.

Yet academic authority does not, by itself, give a conclusion a constitutional basis.

It must be examined firmly, particularly when an interpretation of a Constitutional Court (MK) ruling develops into demands for impeachment, and then becomes a warning in a threatening tone against a President who has not acceded to those demands. An expert’s responsibility includes the consequences of how they explain the law to the public.

The starting point must be clear. In Case Number 01/PHPU.PRES-XXIV/2026, the Constitutional Court’s ruling stated that the applicants’ petition was inadmissible because they lacked legal standing.

The case concerned a dispute over election results, not a review of the substance of a law. The Constitutional Court did not issue a ruling annulling Gibran’s office, let alone order the President to dismiss him.

The Court’s ruling establishes what was decided in response to the petition submitted. The first step in respecting a ruling is to accept its legal consequences accurately.

In this case, the request for annulment was not granted. The Vice-President’s position was not invalidated by the ruling. No one has the authority to add a dismissal order that the Court did not issue.

It is true that the Court’s reasoning addressed questions concerning evidence of Gibran’s education and referred to the jurisdiction of other institutions under the Constitution. That reasoning must be read.