Jakarta. The Constitutional Court on Monday confirmed Prabowo Subianto as the winner of the Feb. 14 presidential election by rejecting a motion by two defeated candidates who sought to annul the result and demand a revote.

In separate verdict hearings, the justices rejected the motion by Anies Baswedan and Ganjar Pranowo in 5-3 rulings, citing a lack of legal grounds and convincing evidence.

The first verdict turned down the motion by Anies, and in a much shorter hearing next, the court delivered the same ruling in response to Ganjar’s motion.

Since both plaintiffs presented almost identical demands and legal reasoning, justices didn’t repeat much of the wording already read during the first hearing.

Anies and Ganjar accused President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo of election interference by allowing his son, Gibran Rakabuming Raka, to become a ticket mate for Prabowo and intensifying government social aid to sway voters for the pair.

They also alleged favoritism because Gibran was made eligible as the vice-presidential candidate only after the Constitutional Court amended the minimum age requirement in an October hearing presided over by then Chief Justice Anwar Usman, who is also Gibran’s uncle.

Ganjar demanded that Prabowo and Gibran be disqualified in the event of a revote, while Anies limited the demand to Gibran only.

Chief Justice Suhartoyo and four justices said the accusations weren’t supported by convincing evidence and competent witnesses.

Suhartoyo said the motion was “denied in its entirety”.

Justice Arsul Sani said the plaintiffs only presented media clippings and TV news clips but failed to deliver actual evidence to support their claims during previous hearings.

Furthermore, the compilations of media reports didn’t explain any specific voter fraud or favoritism by the Jokowi government before and during the election, Asrul said.

The Constitutional Court could not find “the correlation between intensified government social aid and the increase in votes for a certain candidate,” he said.

Asrul added that government social aid has become a regular program for years unrelated to the election year and the timing of its distribution depends largely on the budget cycle.

Three same justices had dissenting opinions in both the motions brought by Anies and Ganjar. They include Saldi Isra, Enny Nurbaningsih, and Arief Hidayat.

Justice Saldi Isra said the government’s intensified social aid before the election had given an “electoral incentive” to Prabowo and Gibran and argued that a revote should be held in certain electoral districts where government officials have failed to show impartiality.