Mr Prabowo's lawyer Otto Hasibuan said the verdict represented a “victory for all Indonesians” and reaffirmed that the former military leader was looking forward to taking office in October.
Representatives for both former candidates said they respect the court's decision.
Ian Wilson, a senior research fellow at Murdoch University's Center for Indo-Pacific Studies in Perth, said: “The court's decision supports the status quo, so this is not surprising.”
The court's ruling shows how the Widodo government “manipulated a huge loophole in the law that exists and was able to do exactly what it was accused of doing, but which the court found to be in violation of the law.” This indicates that it was possible to do so in a way that could not have been confirmed. It’s their regulation,” he added.
Mr. Anies and Mr. Ganjar, who received about 25% and 16% of the votes respectively, also said Mr. Widodo used his influence to support Mr. Prabowo's campaign by mobilizing local authorities and social assistance programs. claimed to have done so.
Indonesia's Prabowo scheduled to be sworn in as president, some say foul play
Indonesia's Prabowo scheduled to be sworn in as president, some say foul play
This included handing out money and basic food items such as rice and oil to lure voters to Prabowo, who won the election with 58% of the vote.
Prabowo and the Widodo government have repeatedly denied the allegations.
Opponents also claimed that rules were unfairly changed in October to allow Mr. Widodo's son, Gibran Rakabumin Raka, to be Mr. Prabowo's running mate.
Despite acknowledging the ethics violations, the court ruled on Monday that it found no evidence of nepotism behind the decision that allowed Gibran to run.
The challenge for the court in acknowledging that there may have been a problem was that it needed to be “reversed and contradicted.” [its] said Wasist Raharjo Jati, a political analyst at the Jakarta-based National Research and Innovation Agency.
“So this verdict is kind of a repeat of what happened in October.”
opposite opinion
Analysts said the outcome of the ruling was largely predictable and that three of the panel's eight judges dissented was an “interesting development.”
One dissenting vote was by Judge Aliyev Hidayat, who argued that the president and state government agencies lacked neutrality in the election process.
“It was interesting to see the court questioning the president's position, something that perhaps could not have been expected in the days when his brother-in-law Anwar Usman was leading the court,” Wasisto said. Told.
Titi Angrein, a legal expert at the University of Indonesia, said the dissent undermined the “legitimacy” of the result and would “always be controversial in society.”
“The three justices who wrote the dissenting opinion are a reminder of the issues at stake in this election, and the failure to uphold fair, free, honest, fair, equal, and democratic elections as required by this country's Constitution. until 1945, raising concerns about the future.
Analysts say the court's ruling will also inform how local elections in Indonesia will unfold in the future. While there may be a growing awareness among courts about how national resources can be used to sway voters, it may be difficult to scrutinize the use of such tactics at a more local level.
“They may not have broken any regulations, but as the opposition pointed out, things were not done in a spirit of honesty and openness. I think that's the disaster of this election. “I'm thinking about it,” Wilson said.
Nostalgia for the Suharto era triggers warnings about Indonesia's dark history
Nostalgia for the Suharto era triggers warnings about Indonesia's dark history
“We're almost certainly going to see the same thing.” [methods] “It's been used over and over again, and that's bad for Indonesia's democracy,” he said.
The Constitutional Court's ruling is final and binding, leaving no avenue for Prabowo's two rival candidates to challenge the election results. However, the fact that the ruling was not unanimous may lend some legitimacy to their camp and its supporters.
“what [the rival camps] “It's not clear at this point whether there will be any political progress, but even if the status quo remains, they will take it as a moral victory,” Wilson said.
