Constitutional Court Sets Three Indicators for National Disaster Status, Prioritising Victim Count
The Constitutional Court (MK) has partially granted a judicial review petition against Law Number 24 of 2007 on Disaster Management. The court ruled that the number of victims is the primary indicator that must be fulfilled to determine national disaster status.
“Verdict. Adjudicate: to grant the Petitioners’ request in part,” said Chief Justice Suhartoyo while reading the verdict for case 261/PUU-XXIII/2025 at the Constitutional Court building in Central Jakarta on Friday (28/8/2026).
In its considerations, the court stated that Article 7 paragraph (2) of Law 24/2007 regulates that the determination of both national and regional disaster status must meet five indicators. These include the number of victims, property losses, damage to infrastructure and facilities, the extent of the affected area, and socio-economic impacts.
“This means that if one of the five indicators is not met, then the disaster that occurs cannot be designated as a national or regional disaster,” said a constitutional justice.
However, after examining the five indicators, the court found that they are conceptually intertwined, where one indicator more or less influences or is influenced by another. For example, the socio-economic impact indicator overlaps with three other indicators: the number of victims, property losses, and damage to facilities and infrastructure.
“In other words, if the indicators of victim count, property losses, and infrastructure damage show high levels, then the socio-economic impact indicator is certainly also high without needing to be calculated separately,” the justice said.
The court assessed that the cumulative requirement of five indicators makes the application of Article 7 paragraph (2) of Law 24/2007 difficult to fulfil in disaster conditions that factually occur in a region. The court stated that to guarantee fair legal certainty in the perspective of protecting citizens’ constitutional rights, particularly victims of natural disasters, it needed to provide a conditional interpretation of the norm in Article 7 paragraph (2) of Law 24/2007.
“By making the criteria that serve as indicators as referred to in Article 7 paragraph (2) of Law 24/2007 not fully cumulative, but rather cumulative in a limited manner,” the justice said.
The court declared that if three of the five indicators have been met, then the indicators referred to in Article 7 paragraph (2) of Law 24/2007 have been fulfilled. The provision places the number of victims as the primary indicator among at least three indicators that must be met.
“The court’s position in determining three of the five indicators is based on the consideration that, besides making the five indicators cumulative potentially hindering and slowing early and immediate disaster determination so that emergency response is not handled optimally,” the justice said.
The court stated that the choice of three indicators is also intended to encourage the central government to increase its responsibility and be more responsive to disaster management in the regions. The court declared that if a disaster does not meet the national disaster indicators, namely at least three indicators with the number of victims as the primary indicator, then the disaster constitutes a regional disaster.
“In determining the status and level of a national disaster, it is based on the fulfilment of at least three indicators with the number of victims placed as the primary indicator that must be met,” the justice said.
The court did not consider further the argument that the regulation of disaster status and level determination should remain delegated to a presidential regulation, as it would potentially perpetuate conflicts of interest, political subjectivity, and abuse of discretion. According to the court, the petitioners did not clearly explain the connection between a presidential regulation as a form of legal product and conflicts of interest, political subjectivity, and abuse of discretion.
“Based on these legal considerations, according to the court, the petitioners’ argument questioning the constitutionality of Article 84 of Law 24/2007 is unfounded and must be declared legally unreasonable,” the justice said.