Constitutional Law Professor Urges House of Representatives to Reject Indonesia-US Trade Agreement
Professor of Constitutional Law at Gadjah Mada University (UGM), Denny Indrayana, has urged the House of Representatives (DPR) to reject the trade agreement with the United States, citing unequal reciprocity and potential harm to Indonesia.
Denny stated that the trade agreement, signed by President Prabowo Subianto and US President Donald Trump on 19 February 2026, is not an equitable agreement. He explained that Indonesia is required to fulfil 214 obligations outlined in the agreement, while the United States is only required to fulfil 9. Denny argued that the disproportionate number of obligations clearly indicates that Indonesia is being subjugated by the US.
Scroll down to continue reading.
“The DPR must reject this agreement, which is essentially a form of commercial colonisation of Indonesia by the United States,” Denny said in a video message received by Tempo on Wednesday, 25 February 2026.
This call to action is one of three legal options Denny suggested in response to the agreement. According to him, even though it has been signed, it is not too late to act, as the agreement has not yet come into effect and is not yet binding on both countries.
Denny stated that the Indonesian constitution stipulates that such international agreements must be approved by the DPR. He explained that Article 11 of the 1945 Constitution states that the President, when entering into other international agreements that have broad and fundamental consequences for the lives of the people, relating to the country’s financial burden and/or requiring changes or the creation of laws, must do so with the approval of the DPR.
The trade agreement requires Indonesia to purchase energy, aircraft, and agricultural commodities worth US$33 billion, or approximately Rp 560 trillion. Denny believes that this figure poses a clear risk to the country’s finances and therefore requires the approval of the DPR.
Furthermore, there is Constitutional Court Decision No. 13 of 2018 regarding the judicial review of international treaty laws. This decision conditionally revoked Article 10 of the law, which limited the types of agreements requiring DPR approval.
“The need for DPR ratification is also emphasised in the written explanation from the Coordinating Ministry for Economic Affairs,” he said.
Referring to Article 7.5 of the trade agreement, which states that the agreement will come into effect 90 days after its signing. The agreement becomes effective after both countries provide written notification stating that the legal procedures in each country have been completed.
“This clearly means that the agreement is not yet in effect and is not yet binding, therefore the DPR, on behalf of the Indonesian people, can still reject it by not giving its approval,” said Denny.
The second legal option, Denny continued, is that if the DPR approves the agreement because it is caught up in coalition politics and ratifies it into law, then that law must be brought before the Constitutional Court for review.
“The main test will be that this commercial colonisation by the United States is in direct conflict with the principle of popular sovereignty guaranteed by Article 1, paragraph 2 of the Constitution,” he said.
In addition, the trade agreement law violates Articles 33, paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Constitution, concerning the principle of control over important means of production and the control over the means of livelihood for the majority of the people. This includes the land, water, and natural resources contained within, which are controlled by the state and used for the greatest prosperity of the people, rather than being handed over to the United States.
Thirdly, if the Constitutional Court rejects the constitutional review of the law because it has already been co-opted, Denny said that there needs to be strong pressure on the government to terminate the agreement or, at the very least, renegotiate it.
Moreover, the US Supreme Court’s ruling on 20 February 2026, the day after the trade agreement was signed, stated that the Trump administration’s trade tariff policies were unconstitutional.
“With the US Supreme Court’s ruling, Indonesia is entitled to request termination in accordance with the provisions of Article 7.4, which states that the agreement ceases with written notification, or at least Indonesia can make amendments and renegotiate as provided for in Article 7.2 of the agreement,” said Denny.
Editor’s Choice: Prabowo to Meet King Abdullah II in Jordan Today.
Denny stated that the trade agreement, signed by President Prabowo Subianto and US President Donald Trump on 19 February 2026, is not an equitable agreement. He explained that Indonesia is required to fulfil 214 obligations outlined in the agreement, while the United States is only required to fulfil 9. Denny argued that the disproportionate number of obligations clearly indicates that Indonesia is being subjugated by the US.
Scroll down to continue reading.
“The DPR must reject this agreement, which is essentially a form of commercial colonisation of Indonesia by the United States,” Denny said in a video message received by Tempo on Wednesday, 25 February 2026.
This call to action is one of three legal options Denny suggested in response to the agreement. According to him, even though it has been signed, it is not too late to act, as the agreement has not yet come into effect and is not yet binding on both countries.
Denny stated that the Indonesian constitution stipulates that such international agreements must be approved by the DPR. He explained that Article 11 of the 1945 Constitution states that the President, when entering into other international agreements that have broad and fundamental consequences for the lives of the people, relating to the country’s financial burden and/or requiring changes or the creation of laws, must do so with the approval of the DPR.
The trade agreement requires Indonesia to purchase energy, aircraft, and agricultural commodities worth US$33 billion, or approximately Rp 560 trillion. Denny believes that this figure poses a clear risk to the country’s finances and therefore requires the approval of the DPR.
Furthermore, there is Constitutional Court Decision No. 13 of 2018 regarding the judicial review of international treaty laws. This decision conditionally revoked Article 10 of the law, which limited the types of agreements requiring DPR approval.
“The need for DPR ratification is also emphasised in the written explanation from the Coordinating Ministry for Economic Affairs,” he said.
Referring to Article 7.5 of the trade agreement, which states that the agreement will come into effect 90 days after its signing. The agreement becomes effective after both countries provide written notification stating that the legal procedures in each country have been completed.
“This clearly means that the agreement is not yet in effect and is not yet binding, therefore the DPR, on behalf of the Indonesian people, can still reject it by not giving its approval,” said Denny.
The second legal option, Denny continued, is that if the DPR approves the agreement because it is caught up in coalition politics and ratifies it into law, then that law must be brought before the Constitutional Court for review.
“The main test will be that this commercial colonisation by the United States is in direct conflict with the principle of popular sovereignty guaranteed by Article 1, paragraph 2 of the Constitution,” he said.
In addition, the trade agreement law violates Articles 33, paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Constitution, concerning the principle of control over important means of production and the control over the means of livelihood for the majority of the people. This includes the land, water, and natural resources contained within, which are controlled by the state and used for the greatest prosperity of the people, rather than being handed over to the United States.
Thirdly, if the Constitutional Court rejects the constitutional review of the law because it has already been co-opted, Denny said that there needs to be strong pressure on the government to terminate the agreement or, at the very least, renegotiate it.
Moreover, the US Supreme Court’s ruling on 20 February 2026, the day after the trade agreement was signed, stated that the Trump administration’s trade tariff policies were unconstitutional.
“With the US Supreme Court’s ruling, Indonesia is entitled to request termination in accordance with the provisions of Article 7.4, which states that the agreement ceases with written notification, or at least Indonesia can make amendments and renegotiate as provided for in Article 7.2 of the agreement,” said Denny.
Editor’s Choice: Prabowo to Meet King Abdullah II in Jordan Today.