Indonesia 2024 Presidential Election

Decision 90/PUU-XXI/2023, pronounced on 16 October 2023 with two concurrences and four dissents, read the minimum age of 40 as satisfied alternatively by anyone who has held an office filled by election, including a regional head election. On 7 November 2023 the Court's Honorary Council found Chief Justice Anwar Usman, the sitting president's brother-in-law and by marriage the uncle of Gibran Rakabuming Raka, had committed a grave breach of the judicial code in the taking of that decision, chiefly by not withdrawing from a case in which he had a conflict of interest. It removed him from the chief justiceship, barred him from standing for court leadership for the rest of his judicial term, and barred him from sitting on election result disputes carrying a potential conflict of interest. The Council recorded that it had no power to rule on the validity of the decision itself.

On 5 February 2024 the DKPP ruled that the KPU had accepted the Prabowo-Gibran registration before amending KPU Regulation 19 of 2023 to reflect the Constitutional Court ruling, imposing a final stern warning on chair Hasyim Asy'ari and stern warnings on six other commissioners. The Constitutional Court later held that applying the ruling immediately was not unlawful, given that registration closed on 25 October 2023, and that the ethics finding did not invalidate the candidacy.

On 15 February 2024 the KPU said Sirekap had converted the uploaded Form C1-Plano count sheets incorrectly at 2,325 polling stations and instructed committees to correct them; public display of the tallies was later suspended. Ruling on the result challenge, the Constitutional Court recorded the KPU's admission that unvalidated Sirekap data were insufficiently accurate, held that the legal basis of the result remained the tiered manual recapitulation, and recommended an independent audit of the system before further use.

Google's Threat Analysis Group reported terminating 134 channels in January 2024, 11 in February and 48 in March, each batch recorded as a separate coordinated influence operation linked to Indonesia sharing content in Bahasa Indonesia supportive of the Indonesian ruling party. The bulletin attributes the activity to Indonesia rather than to a foreign actor, and names neither an operator, nor the party, nor any candidate; it makes no claim about reach or effect.

ANFREL's accredited expert mission reported that the mobilisation and misuse of state resources, particularly the distribution of social assistance, and Bawaslu's responsiveness to complaints were central integrity problems of the campaign. Rejecting the result challenges, the Court itself said the election law does not regulate campaign-like activity before or after the formal campaign period, leaving a gap through which conduct escapes sanction, and called for fundamental change in how supervision is regulated.

On 22 April 2024 the Court rejected petition 1/PHPU.PRES-XXII/2024 from Anies Baswedan and Muhaimin Iskandar and petition 2/PHPU.PRES-XXII/2024 from Ganjar Pranowo and Mahfud MD in their entirety, holding that allegations of pre-marked ballots, repeat voting and bribery of polling committees were not proven, and that a claim of counting before the close of polls at 3,463 polling stations could not be examined because the petitioners identified no specific stations. The three dissenting justices did not dispute the count: their dissents went to social assistance and the neutrality of officials, recorded separately in this ledger.

Petitioners argued that vote totals could be altered inside Sirekap and that metadata on the scanned Form C1-Plano had been removed. The Court held that Sirekap was a publication and support tool, that the KPU had not used it as the basis of the official count, and that the declared figures came from the manual recapitulation totalled upward from the polling stations; it dismissed the Sirekap claims as legally unfounded while criticising the system's accuracy.

The majority found the social protection programme lawful, budgeted at Rp 496.8 trillion within planned spending of Rp 3,325.1 trillion, and found no empirical evidence of a causal link to the vote. Justices Saldi Isra, Enny Nurbaningsih and Arief Hidayat dissented and would have ordered re-voting on grounds of the politicisation of social assistance and the non-neutrality of officials, Arief naming Jakarta, West Java, Central Java, East Java, Bali and North Sumatra and a 60-day deadline. ANFREL reported the same conduct as a contested issue but published no finding of its effect on the result.

The petitioners pointed to entries recording voters under 17, an age of 1,030 years, voters over 100, names of one or two letters, addresses whose neighbourhood fields were zero, and records sharing the same neighbourhood and polling station identifiers. The Court held that the petitioners could not prove the claim and that it was legally unfounded. That is a finding of failure of proof, not a finding that the register was sound: no recount, audit or forensic review of the register has been published, and the anomalies themselves are consistent with data-entry artefacts as well as with manipulation. The claim is recorded here as unproven rather than refuted.