Prabowo’s decision to join Trump-led Board of Peace challenged in Indonesia’s Constitutional Court
Civil society groups have petitioned Indonesia’s Constitutional Court to review whether parliamentary approval was required for the country’s participation in the Board of Peace initiative.
- Civil society groups challenge legality of Indonesia’s participation in Board of Peace initiative.
- Petition questions need for parliamentary approval under Law No. 24 of 2000.
- Case seeks clearer procedures and timelines for ratifying international agreements.
JAKARTA, INDONESIA: A coalition of civil society organisations and private citizens has filed a judicial review petition with Indonesia’s Constitutional Court, challenging the legal basis of President Prabowo Subianto’s decision to involve the country in the Board of Peace (BoP), an international initiative also referred to as the World Peace Council.
The applicants—Indonesian Anti-Corruption Society (MAKI), LP3HI, and two citizens, Rus Utaryono and Tresno Subagyo—are seeking a constitutional interpretation of Article 10 of Law No. 24 of 2000 on International Treaties. Their petition centres on whether Indonesia’s participation in the BoP required prior approval from the House of Representatives (DPR RI).
The case has been prepared by a legal team comprising Sigit N. Sudibyanto, Dwi, and Ratno. According to LP3HI Chairman Arif Sahudi, all administrative requirements for the filing have been completed and formally submitted to the Constitutional Court.
“We have completed the documents and registered the judicial review with the Constitutional Court,” Arif said on Thursday (16 April 2026).
Dispute over treaty ratification procedures
At the centre of the petition is Article 10 of Law No. 24 of 2000, which governs the ratification of international agreements. The provision stipulates that treaties relating to defence, security, and strategic political matters must receive approval from the DPR through legislation.
The applicants argue that Indonesia’s participation in the Board of Peace falls within this category, given its potential implications for foreign policy, national security, and the country’s geopolitical positioning.
Arif stated that the agreement cannot be classified as an ordinary international arrangement. “If the agreement concerns global peace, international relations, and even potential involvement in conflicts, then parliamentary approval is required,” he said.
He added that the petition was prompted in part by the absence of prior consultation with the DPR, which has led to public debate.
Call for legal certainty and oversight
The applicants are also seeking clearer procedural rules, including the introduction of a formal time limit for submitting international agreements to parliament. Their proposal calls for a maximum period of three months between the signing of an agreement and its deliberation in the DPR.
“We are asking for legal certainty. Within three months of signing, the agreement should be discussed in parliament, whether it is approved or rejected,” Arif said.
He stressed that the legal challenge is not intended to obstruct government policy, but to ensure adherence to constitutional mechanisms. “The state must follow the constitution. If DPR involvement is required, then it must be carried out,” he added.
Arif further warned that the absence of clear procedures could create legal loopholes in the handling of strategic international agreements.
Concerns over ambiguity in existing law
The applicants’ legal counsel, Sigit N. Sudibyanto, argued that Article 10 remains open to multiple interpretations, particularly regarding which agreements require parliamentary approval.
He noted that in practice, some international agreements with potentially significant implications have been ratified solely through presidential regulations, without legislative oversight.
“Agreements concerning politics, defence, security, and the use of state funds should not be ratified only through presidential regulations. There must be DPR supervision as a representative of the people,” he said.
Sigit also highlighted concerns about transparency, stating that the public is often unaware of the contents and implications of international agreements.
“People suddenly find that an agreement has already been ratified, even though it concerns public interests and future generations,” he said.
He added that the lack of a defined timeframe in the ratification process contributes to legal uncertainty. “Without a deadline, there is no clarity on when discussions will take place or whether they have taken place at all,” he said.
Background to Indonesia’s participation
The legal challenge follows President Prabowo’s decision to sign the charter of the Board of Peace on 22 January 2026 during the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
The initiative, introduced by Donald Trump, has been presented as an international platform aimed at advancing peace efforts and humanitarian assistance, particularly in Gaza.
The Indonesian government has described its participation as an opportunity to contribute directly to global peace initiatives and humanitarian relief efforts. Officials have also stated that Indonesia’s involvement is intended to ensure that the forum’s direction aligns with support for Palestinian independence and a two-state solution.
However, the decision has generated debate domestically, including concerns over legal procedures, financial commitments, and alignment with Indonesia’s long-standing foreign policy principles.
Awaiting Constitutional Court review
The applicants have expressed hope that the Constitutional Court will provide a definitive interpretation of Article 10, particularly regarding the requirement for parliamentary approval and the procedural timeline for ratification.
The ruling is expected to clarify the constitutional boundaries between executive authority and legislative oversight in Indonesia’s conduct of international agreements.
