Jakarta. The Constitutional Court hearings on disputes arising from the presidential election have brought forth a challenging question: What if the eight justices assigned to handle the case cannot reach a consensus and vote four to four?

Before delving into the potential outcome, let's first revisit the sequence of events leading to this complex situation and gain a basic understanding of the Indonesian justice system.

What is the Constitutional Court?
The Constitutional Court serves as the ultimate interpreter of the constitution. Disputes regarding conflicting interpretations of the 1945 Constitution can only be settled by this court. Furthermore, it is the sole body authorized to resolve disputes regarding election results, and its rulings cannot be appealed.

This positions the Constitutional Court as the highest authority in matters concerning the constitution and election results. However, in civil and criminal cases, the Supreme Court holds the highest jurisdiction.

How Many Justices Does the Constitutional Court Have?
The Constitutional Court comprises nine justices. However, former Chief Justice Anwar Usman had to recuse himself from the ongoing presidential election disputes due to his controversial ruling regarding the candidacy of Gibran Rakabuming Raka, the eldest son of President Joko Widodo.

In October, Anwar presided over a panel that amended a regulation requiring presidential or vice-presidential candidates to be at least 40 years old. The panel made an exception for candidates who have served or are serving in elected public offices, thereby making Gibran, aged 37 and the elected mayor of Solo, eligible to contest.

The ruling sparked nationwide controversy due to Anwar's familial relationship with Gibran, leading to Anwar's removal from the chief justice position following an ethics tribunal finding him guilty of serious violations of ethics and good conduct.

The Ethics Council also bans him from participating in court hearings trying presidential election disputes.

Why Is There a Dispute?
Gibran's subsequent appointment as the running mate of presidential candidate Prabowo Subianto mere days after the controversial ruling intensified the dispute. His candidacy played a decisive role in bolstering Prabowo's popularity, leading to their convincing victory in the Feb. 14 election with 58 percent of the vote.

Defeated presidential candidates Anies Baswedan and Ganjar Pranowo raised concerns about the legitimacy of Gibran's candidacy given the circumstances surrounding his eligibility.

They are demanding the Constitutional Court declare the Prabowo-Gibran pairing illegitimate and order a revote without Gibran. Additionally, they allege widespread election fraud, although details about evidence supporting their claim remain scarce.

How Is a Constitutional Court Verdict Reached?
Following the review of evidence, cross-examination of witnesses, and deliberation on arguments presented by both plaintiffs and defendants, all justices will convene behind closed doors to reach a consensus for the verdict.

"If no consensus is reached, there will be a 'cooling-off' period before they reconvene for a second time," explained Constitutional Court spokesman Fajar Laksono on Tuesday.

"Consensus among justices is the optimal verdict-making process, hence it may be attempted twice. If both attempts fail, the law mandates a vote among the justices."

What Happens in the Event of a Tie?
The presence of an even number of justices in the trial raises the possibility of a tie.

"In the event of a tie, with the vote ending four to four, Article 45 of the Law on the Constitutional Court stipulates that the vote by the chief justice must prevail. That's what the law dictates," Fajar said.

"There is no provision for a deadlock, even with eight justices. The law ensures that there will be a final and binding verdict," he added.

When Can We Expect a Verdict?
The opening hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, during which the panel will assess whether the plaintiffs have a valid case to be tried and possess the legal standing to request a trial.

If the panel deems the preparations satisfactory, they will permit the plaintiffs to present their opening arguments the following day.

From April 1 to 18, the court will scrutinize evidence and witness testimonies, while also hearing further arguments from experts, plaintiffs, and counter-arguments from the defendants.

The defendants may include the General Election Commission (KPU) and the Election Oversight Body (Bawaslu). The legal team for Prabowo and Gibran have voluntarily requested participation in the trial as a "party of interest," enabling them to present their arguments.

The justices will convene from April 19 to 21 and deliver the verdict on April 22.

Prabowo’s Response to the Lawsuits
The Prabowo camp maintains that Gibran’s candidacy does not violate any laws.

Yusril Ihza Mahendra, who leads Prabowo’s legal team, emphasized that Gibran became eligible to contest based on a ruling issued by the Constitutional Court, the very same court handling the current case.

"If they dispute Mr. Gibran’s candidacy due to the Constitutional Court ruling, they are not actually challenging the KPU and [Prabowo] as the defendants. They are challenging the Constitutional Court directly," Yusril said.

Yusril argued that if Anies and Ganjar objected to last year’s controversial ruling, they should have pursued the case with the Election Oversight Body (Bawaslu) or the State Administrative Court before the election.

In fact, by participating in the election alongside Prabowo and Gibran, Anies and Ganjar essentially accepted the ruling.

To provide context, Yusril suggested that Anies and Ganjar initiated the lawsuits solely because they lost the election and are unwilling to accept the outcome.

Yusril further said that disputes over administrative procedures are distinct from those concerning presidential election results. The former should be adjudicated by the State Administrative Court, while the latter falls under the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court.

“We believe that the Constitutional Court is fully cognizant of its role, which is to adjudicate election disputes, not administrative procedures falling under the jurisdiction of a different court,” Yusril said.