Constitutional Court Rejects Dharma Pongrekun's Challenge to Health Law

The Constitutional Court (MK) has rejected a petition filed by former Deputy Head of the State Cyber and Crypto Agency (BSSN) Dharma Pongrekun. The court declared that Dharma’s challenge to articles within the Health Law was legally unfounded. ‘Rejects the Petitioner’s request in its entirety,’ stated the MK ruling, as quoted from decision document number 172/PUU-XXIV/2026 on Tuesday (30/6/2026). The MK stated that the Health Law must be understood holistically, including the principles that underpin it. The court noted that the Health Law is intended to protect and maintain public health by placing emphasis on health protection and improvement through an effective, efficient, equitable, and sustainable health system. The MK said these principles and objectives serve as boundaries for other articles within the law, including the article concerning the declaration of an extraordinary event (KLB) by the minister that was challenged by Dharma. ‘This means that if a KLB and epidemic condition has other criteria requiring a ministerial declaration, such a declaration cannot be carried out outside the principles of implementation in Law 17/2023, in casu the principles as contained in the norms of Article 2 and Article 3 of Law 17/2023, which within certain limits already contain the essence requested in Point 2 of the petition,’ the MK stated. The MK also declared that Article 446 of Law 17/2023 is not solely intended to punish perpetrators who violate obligations. The court stated that the article was created to protect broader legal interests, namely public health and public safety during an outbreak or epidemic. ‘In the context of an extraordinary event and epidemic, the actions of a person who does not comply with countermeasure efforts or hinders their implementation not only impacts themselves, but also potentially poses a risk of spreading disease to the wider community,’ the MK stated. The MK found no constitutional issues with the articles challenged by Dharma. The court ruled that Dharma’s arguments were entirely without legal merit.