MAKI Challenges International Agreements Law at Constitutional Court, References BoP
The Indonesian Anti-Corruption Society (MAKI) is challenging Law No. 24 of 2000 on International Agreements at the Constitutional Court (MK). They reference Indonesia’s involvement in the Board of Peace (BoP), proposed by US President Donald Trump.
According to the MK’s official website on Monday (20/4/2026), the lawsuit is registered under case number 143/PUU-XXIV/2026. The petitioners are MAKI, represented by Boyamin Saiman and Supriyadi; LP3HI, represented by Arif Sahudi; as well as Rus Utaryono and Tresno Subagyo.
They are challenging Article 10 of Law 24/2000. The content of the challenged article is as follows:
The ratification of international agreements shall be conducted by law if it concerns:
political matters, peace, defence, and national security;
changes to territory or determination of the state borders of the Republic of Indonesia;
sovereignty or sovereign rights of the state;
human rights and the environment;
the establishment of new legal norms;
foreign loans and/or grants.
The petitioners request that the MK declare the phrase in Article 10 of Law 24/2000 on International Agreements, ‘The ratification of international agreements shall be conducted by law if it concerns …’, to be contrary to the 1945 Constitution and conditionally without binding legal force unless interpreted as: ‘no later than three months since the aforementioned agreement is signed’.
They reference Indonesia’s participation in the BoP. According to the petitioners, the absence of a time limit for ratifying international agreements through law has caused losses.
“Without a three-month time limit, the executive can unilaterally absorb budgets to implement the Board of Peace agreement or defence equipment without oversight, which could lead to state losses and corruption practices. This loss is not hypothetical but real and certain to occur because the checks and balances mechanism is paralysed during the delay period,” they stated.
The petitioners consider the BoP to involve matters of peace, defence, and security. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the BoP must be ratified through law within three months after the agreement is signed.
“Allowing delays in DPR approval (undue delay) in the BoP or defence agreements means leaving citizens in an ‘information and protection blind zone’. If a conflict escalation affects Indonesian citizens, the government cannot provide maximum protection because Indonesia’s position in the agreement has not yet been tested by the DPR. Therefore, the maximum three-month limit is a concrete form of implementing the mandate of the Fourth Paragraph of the Preamble to the 1945 Constitution to ensure that citizen protection is not delayed by executive interests alone,” they stated.