---

Principal Petitioners and legal counsel during ruling hearing of the judicial review of the Treaty Law, Thursday (22/11) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

The Constitutional Court (MK) partially granted the judicial review of the provision of House approval requirements. The Decision No. 13/PUU-XVI/2018 is related to the testing of Law No. 24/2000 on Treaties, Thursday (22/11).

"Declares Article 10 of Law Number 24 of 2000 contradicts the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and does not have conditional binding legal force insofar as it is interpreted that only the types of treaties as mentioned in letters a to f in the a quo article require the approval of the House so that only those types of treaties are approved by law," explained Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Anwar Usman.

The Petitioners claimed that Article 10 of the Treaty Law was against the 1945 Constitution, along the phrase, "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" in Article 11 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution was only limited to certain categories. Those categories are a) political, peace, defense, and state security issues; b) changes in territory or determination of the territory of the Republic of Indonesia; c) sovereignty or sovereign rights of the state; d) human rights and the environment; e) the formation of new legal rules; f) foreign loans and/or grants.

In the legal consideration read by Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna, the Court affirmed that there was no phrase "produce an extensive and fundamental impact on the lives of the people which is linked to the state financial burden, and/or that will require an amendment to or the enactment of a law" in the formulation of Article 10 of the Treaty Law. However, he added, the Court understood the intentions of the Petitioners, that the norm formulated in Article 10 of the Treaty Law was related to the phrase "produce an extensive and fundamental impact on the lives of the people which is linked to the state financial burden, and/or that will require an amendment to or the enactment of a law" as referred to in Article 11 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. Therefore, he continued, the ratification of such treaties was carried out by law.

Justice Palguna explained that the Court was of the opinion that the issue whether a treaty was classified as an agreement requiring House approval or not only would only be known after consultation with the House, as stipulated in Article 2 of Law 24/2000, so the formulation of the norm in Article 10 of Law 24/2000 had caused an interpretation that only the treaties mentioned in Article 10 of Law 24/2000 were classified into such agreements.

Meanwhile, he said, the developments in international relations were increasingly intense, making fellow members of the international community be increasingly interdependent in fulfilling their needs, within reasonable limits would greatly influence Indonesia\\'s national interests. With such interdependence, there is high possibility that things that have not had any significant impacts on the interests and needs of Indonesia in the future will very likely to have serious impacts.

"Therefore, while carefully considering sufficient flexibility for the President to be able to effectively carry out his government functions, the formulation of the norm set out in Article 10 of Law 24/2000 will not be able to answer needs, and [such inability] rather than being merely technical-administrative issues is directly related to the fulfillment of the mandate of the Constitution. Accordingly, the Court is of the opinion that the Petitioners\\' argument insofar as it is related to Article 10 of Law 24/2000 is reasonable according to law," he explained.

In the decision, the Court rejected the argument related to the constitutionality of Article 2, Article 9 paragraph (2), and Article 11 paragraph (1) of the Treaty Law. The Court considered that the Petitioners\\' arguments related to the three articles were unreasonable according to law.

The petition was filed by 14 Petitioners who are individuals and NGOs, namely Indonesia for Global Justice (IGJ), Indonesia Human Rights Committee for Social Justice, Farmers Union, Bina Desa Sadajiwa Foundation (Bina Desa), Aliansi Petani Indonesia (API),  Solidaritas Perempuan (SP), Perkumpulan Koalisi Rakyat untuk Keadilan Perikanan (KIARA), Farmer Initiatives for Ecological Livelihood and Democracy (FIELD), Serikat Petani Kelapa Sawit (SPKS), Amin Abdullah, Mukmin, Fauziah, Baiq Farihun, and Budiman.

In their petition, the Petitioners considered Article 2, Article 9 paragraph (2), Article 10, and Article 11 paragraph (1) of the Treaty Law to have impaired 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 claimed that all of the provisions are against the 1945 Constitution, especially Article 11 paragraph (2). (Arif Satriantoro/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---