The One-Ticket Myth

Indonesian politics is entering an interesting new phase. Gibran Rakabuming Raka is now facing a more overt wave of political pressure.

Tamsil Linrung and Bachtiar Nasir have begun mobilising supporters to hold a rally of one million people at the National Monument (Monas) in Jakarta in the near future. The build-up began last Sunday on the grounds of Al-Azhar Mosque.

The movement has attracted attention because it coincides with the House of Representatives returning to work this week after its recess.

Pressure from the public, civic organisations, prominent figures and experts could converge with the political process in Senayan.

If all these forces move in unison, the issue of Gibran’s impeachment could enter a more serious phase.

Amid these developments, however, Gibran’s supporters in the political circle known as the Solo Gang have put forward a counter-argument.

They say that if Gibran is impeached, Prabowo must also step down. Their reasoning is simple: the President and Vice-President were elected as one ticket.

That argument may sound convincing to someone looking only at the ballot paper. But when we turn to the Constitution, it becomes clear that the argument has no firm foundation.

Interestingly, Joko Widodo himself once made this one-ticket argument. On 6 June 2025, responding to a proposal to impeach Gibran at the time, Jokowi put forward the argument.

He said that Indonesia elects its president and vice-president on a single ticket, unlike the Philippines, where they are elected separately.

Jokowi’s statement is correct in the context of elections. Voters do indeed choose a presidential and vice-presidential candidate as a pair. But does electing them together automatically mean that their constitutional accountability is inseparable?

That is where the argument goes wrong. Gibran’s supporters are conflating two distinct matters: the electoral process and the process for removing office-holders.

The Constitution uses language far more precise than political propaganda. One phrase in the 1945 Constitution is enough to debunk this myth.

Article 7A of the 1945 Constitution explicitly states that the President and/or Vice-President may be removed from office during their term by the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR), on a proposal from the House of Representatives (DPR).

Note the words “and/or”. The constitution’s framers deliberately used this phrase to allow for three possibilities: the President alone, the Vice-President alone, or both together.

Article 7B sets out the removal process. The DPR must first submit its opinion to the Constitutional Court (MK). The MK examines, hears and rules on the matter.

If the MK upholds the DPR’s opinion, parliament may pass the removal proposal on to the MPR. The MPR then makes a decision at a session subject to strict quorum and voting requirements.

The President or Vice-President facing a removal proposal is also entitled to provide an explanation.

Accordingly, the DPR cannot remove Gibran simply because a demonstration fills Monas. The crowd can express its aspirations and exert political pressure.

The constitutional process, however, still requires legal grounds, evidence, an examination by the MK and a decision by the MPR. Democracy continues, but the Constitution remains its guiding framework.

What happens if only Gibran is removed? Article 8(2) already provides the answer: the President remains in office.

Within no more than 60 days, the MPR must hold a session to elect a new Vice-President from two candidates nominated by the President.

This provision shows how carefully the framers of the amendments to the 1945 Constitution anticipated a leadership crisis. They designed a way forward for a range of eventualities.