Dharma Pongrekun Seeks Constitutional Court Ruling to Strike Down Prohibition on Obstructing Outbreak Response
Former Deputy Head of the State Cyber and Encryption Agency (BSSN), Dharma Pongrekun, has filed a constitutional challenge against the Health Law with the Constitutional Court (MK). He requests the MK to strike down the prohibition on obstructing the management of extraordinary events (KLB) or outbreaks.
According to the official website of the Constitutional Court on Tuesday (19 May 2026), Dharma’s petition is registered under number 172/PUU-XXIV/2026. The following articles are challenged by Dharma:
Article 353(2)(g) of Law No. 17/2023 on Health:
- The criteria for KLB as referred to in paragraph (1) consist of:
- other criteria set by the Minister
Article 394 of the Health Law:
Every person must comply with all activities to tackle KLB and outbreaks carried out by the Central Government and the Local Governments.
Article 395(1) of the Health Law:
Every person who knows of a sick person or is suspected of illness arising from a health problem that has the potential to cause a KLB or to cause an outbreak must immediately report to the village/kelurahan authorities and/or nearby health service facilities.
Article 400 of the Health Law:
Every person is prohibited from obstructing the implementation of measures to tackle KLB and outbreaks.
Article 446 of the Health Law:
Every person who does not comply with the implementation of measures to tackle KLB and Outbreaks and/or who deliberately obstructs the implementation of such measures as referred to in Article 400 shall be punished by a criminal penalty in the form of a fine of up to Rp 500 million.
In his petition, Dharma states that those articles could adversely affect him. He says those articles infringe his constitutional rights.
“The application of the aforementioned articles directly infringes the Applicant’s constitutional right to personal protection and security, including sovereignty over the body, as guaranteed in Article 28G(1) of the 1945 Constitution,” Dharma said in his petition.
He notes that the phrase ‘obstructing’ in Article 400 is too broad. He says it could create legal uncertainty.
“The lack of clarity in the parameters for establishing KLB and the breadth of the interpretation of the phrase ‘obstructing’ as regulated in Article 400 of the Health Law, which is then linked to the threat of criminal penalties in Article 446 of the Health Law, has created conditions that do not provide fair legal certainty as guaranteed by Article 28D(1) of the 1945 Constitution,” he said.
On that basis, the former Jakarta Governor candidate asks the MK to:
Accept and grant the Applicant’s petition in its entirety;
Rule that Article 353(2)(g) of the Health Law contradicts the 1945 Constitution and has no binding force unless construed with a conditional constitutional meaning, namely: ‘other criteria set by the Minister after joint review with the Council and College and must be based on strong scientific evidence and must be disclosed transparently to the public’;
Rule that Article 394 of the Health Law contradicts the 1945 Constitution and has no binding force unless construed with a conditional constitutional meaning, namely: ‘Every person has the right and/or obligation in organising activities to tackle KLB and outbreaks, while respecting the right to consent to medical actions and human rights in accordance with applicable laws’;
Rule that Article 395(1) of the Health Law contradicts the 1945 Constitution and has no binding force unless construed with a conditional constitutional meaning, namely: ‘Every person who knows of a sick or suspected sick person due to health problems that could cause a KLB or outbreaks and/or who experiences or suffers from health problems that could cause a KLB and/or outbreaks has the right to report to village/kelurahan authorities and/or nearby health service facilities’;
Rule that Article 400 of the Health Law contradicts the 1945 Constitution and has no binding force;
Rule that Article 446 of the Health Law contradicts the 1945 Constitution and has no binding force;
Order the publication of this decision in the State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia as appropriate.
If the panel of judges of the Constitutional Court should hold a different view, he requests a decision that is as fair as possible (ex aequo et bono).