{
    "success": true,
    "data": {
        "id": 1661508,
        "msgid": "dpr-at-mk-declaration-of-disaster-status-not-based-solely-on-number-of-victims-1775606640",
        "date": "2026-04-07 17:29:33",
        "title": "DPR at MK: Declaration of Disaster Status Not Based Solely on Number of Victims",
        "author": "Nawir Arsyad Akbar",
        "source": "KOMPAS",
        "tags": "",
        "topic": "Legal",
        "summary": "In a Constitutional Court hearing, DPR representative Sarifuddin Sudding argued that declaring a disaster status under Law No. 24\/2007 on Disaster Management involves five comprehensive indicators beyond just victim numbers, including property losses, infrastructure damage, affected area scope, and impacts on social, economic, and national development life. He emphasised that the process must be data-driven and objective, managed by BNPB and BPBD, with flexibility provided through Presidential Regulations for adaptability. The case stems from seven petitioners challenging Articles 7(2) and 7(3) of the law against the 1945 Constitution, highlighting the constitutional implications for resource mobilisation and budgeting.",
        "content": "<p>JAKARTA, KOMPAS.com - The House of Representatives (DPR), represented\nby Commission III member Sarifuddin Sudding, stated that the declaration\nof disaster status is not based solely on the number of victims.<\/p>\n<p>In the hearing for Case No.\u00a0261\/PUU-XXIII\/2025 at the Constitutional\nCourt (MK), Sudding revealed that there are four other indicators in the\ndeclaration of disaster status as regulated in Law (UU) No.\u00a024 of 2007\non Disaster Management.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThe declaration of disaster status is not based solely on the number\nof victims, but also encompasses losses to property; damage to\nfacilities and infrastructure; the scope of the affected area; and\nimpacts on social, economic, and national development life,\u201d said\nSudding, who attended virtually, on Tuesday (7\/4\/2026).<\/p>\n<p>The five indicators mentioned in the norm are limitative in nature\nand must be considered comprehensively, not optionally.<\/p>\n<p>He explained that the mechanism for declaring a state of emergency\ndue to disaster has been designed as a fact-based data process through\nrapid and accurate assessment by the National Disaster Management Agency\n(BNPB) and Regional Disaster Management Agencies (BPBD) based on the\nindicators as objective prerequisites as regulated in Articles 48 and 49\nof the Disaster Management Law.<\/p>\n<p>The declaration of a state of emergency due to disaster is a\ngovernment decision\/policy with constitutional dimensions, because it\ndirectly implies the command system, mobilisation of resources, use of\nbudgets both from the State Budget (APBN) and Regional Budgets (APBD),\nas well as the implementation of access facilitations.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThus, the declaration of status and level of disaster is a policy\ndecision that must be based on factual data, comprehensive technical\nanalysis, and thorough identification of all indicators that have been\ndetermined by the law,\u201d he continued.<\/p>\n<p>However, when forming the Disaster Management Law, the DPR recognised\nthe possibility of dynamics and disaster conditions that require further\nflexible regulation.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cTherefore, it was agreed that further provisions regarding\nindicators and procedures for declaring status and levels of disaster\nwould be regulated by Presidential Regulation, as affirmed in Article 7\nparagraph (3) of the Disaster Management Law,\u201d said Sudding.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThis delegative regulation is intended to provide a more\noperational, adaptive, and responsive legal basis in disaster\nmanagement,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n<p>Previously, seven individuals filed a material judicial review\npetition against the articles regulating the declaration of national\ndisaster status.<\/p>\n<p>They are Elydya Kristina Simanullang (Petitioner I), Doris Manggalang\nRaja Sagala (Petitioner II), Jonswaris Sinaga (Petitioner III), Robinar\nV.K. Panggabean (Petitioner IV), Amudin Laia (Petitioner V), Roy\nSitompul (Petitioner VI), and Christian Adrianus Sihite (Petitioner\nVII).<\/p>\n<p>In Case No.\u00a0261\/PUU-XXIII\/2025, the Petitioners challenged Article 7\nparagraphs (2) and (3) of Law (UU) No.\u00a024 of 2007 on Disaster Management\nagainst the 1945 Constitution (UUD).<\/p>",
        "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/dpr-at-mk-declaration-of-disaster-status-not-based-solely-on-number-of-victims-1775606640",
        "image": ""
    },
    "sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
    "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}