Petitioner Boyamin Saiman reads out the revised petition during the Petition Revision Hearing of Case Number 143/PUU-XXIV/2026 at the Panel Courtroom, 4th Floor, Building 2 of the Constitutional Court. Photo by MKRI/Fauzan.
JAKARTA, (MKRI) – The Constitutional Court reconvened the hearing on Petition Number 143/PUU-XXIV/2026 concerning the judicial review of Law Number 24 of 2000 on International Agreements (International Agreements Law) on Tuesday (05/12/2026). The petition was filed by the Indonesian Anti-Corruption Society (MAKI/Petitioner I), the Indonesian Legal Enforcement Monitoring and Oversight Institute (LP3HI/Petitioner II), Rus Utaryono (Petitioner III), and Tresno Subagyo (Petitioner IV). The agenda of this second hearing was to examine the revised petition.
During the hearing, counsel for the Petitioners, Boyamin Saiman, presented the main points of the revised petition. These included revisions to the legal standing of MAKI (Petitioner I); revisions to the grounds of the petition by incorporating examples of international agreements that have and have not received approval from the House of Representatives (DPR), such as the 1966 agreement on the normalization of Indonesia–Malaysia relations enacted under Law Number 5 of 1966; and revisions to the petitum of the Petitioners.
“It appears that this is the furthest example we have found. There is also Law Number 3 of 2023 concerning the Indonesia–Singapore agreement, and there are others not yet approved, including those related to foreign aircraft crossings. We are not debating these, but they have influenced changes in the petitum. It has been proven that we lost three villages in North Kalimantan, in Nunukan Regency, with around 300 residents, exchanged for 5,000 hectares of territory. This has been substantiated,” Boyamin explained.
Read also:
Absence of Time Limit for Submitting Parliamentary Approval in International Agreements Challenged
At the Preliminary Examination Hearing on Wednesday (04/29/2026), Dwi Nurdiansyah Santoso, counsel for the Petitioners, argued that Article 10 of the International Agreements Law contradicts the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (UUD 1945).
He explained that the provision constitutes the root of inefficiency due to the absence of clear parameters regarding the nominal threshold of “state financial burden” in international agreements. The Constitution requires DPR approval for agreements that have broad impacts and impose financial burdens on the state. Referring to Article 11 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution, the President, in concluding international agreements that have broad and fundamental consequences for the people and relate to state financial burdens, and/or require the enactment or amendment of laws, must obtain DPR approval.
According to the Petitioners, this constitutional provision represents a concrete manifestation of the principle of checks and balances, ensuring that executive power does not operate without legislative oversight as the representative of the people and holder of budgetary authority.
The absence of a time limit for submitting agreements to the DPR is considered a form of legal circumvention and arbitrariness. Even the requirement to obtain DPR approval risks becoming illusory or merely formalistic if the law does not establish a definite timeframe for the President.
The absence of a “time limit” clause creates a legal loophole for the executive to implement agreements de facto while indefinitely delaying their submission to the legislature. This practice of indefinite delay is seen as a manifestation of executive tyranny and abuse of power, which is fundamentally contrary to the rule of law as enshrined in Article 1 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution.
In their petitum, the Petitioners request the Court to declare Article 10 of the International Agreements Law, specifically the phrase “Ratification of international agreements shall be carried out by law if concerning: …,” as conditionally unconstitutional, insofar as it is not interpreted to mean “no later than three (3) months after the agreement in question is signed.”
Author : Sri Pujianti
Editor : N. Rosi.
PR : Andhini S.F.
Translator : Agusweka PS.
Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian versions, the Indonesian version prevails.
Case Track: Number 143/PUU-XXIV/2026
Tuesday, May 12, 2026 | 15:02 WIB 75