Indonesia’s Constitutional Court rejected a judicial review petition by residents of Palangka Raya, Central Kalimantan, challenging provisions of Law No. 24 of 2007 on Disaster Management, according to a source article. The applicants, including Damai Alam Usop and others, argued that the phrase “adequate” in Article 6(e) and Article 8(d) of the law was unconstitutional, citing inconsistencies with Article 23(1) of the 1945 Constitution. The court ruled that the term “adequate” did not violate the constitution and dismissed the petition as legally unfounded.
The court’s decision, delivered by Justice Liliek Prisbawono Adi, stated that the phrase “adequate” did not contradict constitutional principles. The applicants had sought a reinterpretation of the law to require regional budgets to account for disaster risk levels, but the court said this would introduce legal uncertainty. It also noted that financial relations between central and regional governments are governed by Law No. 1 of 2022, which addresses fiscal transfers. The court emphasized that disputes over funding allocation and implementation fell outside the scope of constitutional review.
Legal Challenge Over ‘Adequate’ Funding Criteria
The petition, registered as Case No. 369/PUU-XXIV/2026, focused on the constitutionality of the term “adequate” in disaster management funding. The applicants argued that the absence of objective criteria for determining “adequate” funding violated their right to a healthy environment. The court rejected this claim, stating that the law’s wording did not infringe on constitutional rights. It also dismissed arguments that the phrase “adequate” in Article 8(d) conflicted with the principle of fair financial relations between government levels, citing subsequent legislation as sufficient.
Court Rules Arguments Unfounded
Justice Liliek Prisbawono Adi concluded that the applicants’ arguments lacked legal basis. He stated that the court’s role was not to address fiscal transfer policies or implementation challenges, which are administrative matters. The applicants, all residents of Palangka Raya affected by forest fires, had contended that peatland regions face disproportionate fire risks, but the court said this issue pertains to policy decisions rather than constitutional validity. The ruling left unresolved questions about how disaster funding is allocated in high-risk areas.
Unanswered Questions on Environmental Rights
While the applicants cited Article 23(1) of the constitution, the court found no constitutional violation.
