Constitutional Justices after judicial review hearing of Law Number 24 of 2000 on Treaties, Monday (16/4) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

The judicial review hearing of Law No. 24/2000 on Treaties was postponed by the Constitutional Court (MK). The delay was because the written statement from the expert of Petitioner No. 13/PUU-XVI/2018 was submitted late.

The Petitioners’ attorney Ibrahim Sumantri said that he submitted the written statement after the deadline. He submitted the written statement just before the hearing started. This, he added, was because only one expert could attend, out of the three experts initial planned to be presented.

"Yes. So it is late. In practice [the statement] should be submitted two days before the day of hearing. That is the latest submission, not [starting two days before the hearing]. Therefore, the expert statement cannot be heard today," said Chief Justice Anwar Usman on Monday (16/4). Justice Anwar postponed the hearing until April 30, 2018 at 11 a.m.

In their petition, the Petitioners considered Article 2, Article 9 paragraph (2), Article 10, and Article 11 paragraph (1) of the International Treaty Law impair their constitutional rights, which are guaranteed by the 1945 Constitution. The three norms regulate the role of the House of Representatives in making and approving treaties. The Petitioners claim that all of the provisions are against the 1945 Constitution, especially Article 11 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution that reads, "The President in making other international agreements that will produce an extensive and fundamental impact on the lives of the people which is linked to the state financial burden, and/or that will requires an amendment to or the enactment of a law, shall obtain the approval of the DPR."

The House’s role to approve a treaty is deemed to be reduced by the enactment of Article 2 of the Treaty Law. This is because the a quo article has replaced the phrase "with the approval of the House of Representatives" with the phrase "upon the consultation with the House of Representatives in matters relating to public interest." Furthermore, in their petition the Petitioners stated that House approval in treaty making is very important because making a treaty means that the state has given part of its sovereignty, especially related to treaties that have broad and fundamental consequences for the people\'s lives. 

Therefore, the approval by the House of Representatives as a manifestation of the sovereignty of the people becomes very important, especially related to treaties that have broad and fundamental consequences for the people\'s lives. The word "approval" reduces the word "consultation" with the House so that it puts the House at the end of the treaty drafting process by only acting in the ratification of the treaty made by the Government of Indonesia. The Petitioners also consider Article 10 of the Treaty Law providing limitation on the types of treaties that must be ratified by a law. Thus, the material of a treaty other than the provision of Article 10 of the a quo law must be ratified by the provisions of legislation under the law (presidential decree). Oliver continued, related to Article 11 paragraph (1) of the Treaty Law along with the elucidation are an inseparable unity of Article 10 of the a quo law. Thus, the a quo article is also judged contrary to the Constitution. (ARS/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)