Disaster Management Law Challenged in Constitutional Court, Government: Disaster Status Not Absolute Discretion
The government has affirmed that the decision not to designate the floods and landslides in Aceh, North Sumatra, and West Sumatra as a national disaster was not an arbitrary action without legal basis.
During the judicial review hearing of the Disaster Management Law at the Constitutional Court (MK) on Thursday (February 26), the government refuted allegations that the President has unlimited authority in determining disaster status.
Bahtiar, an expert staff member of the Minister in the field of Governance at the Ministry of Home Affairs, representing the President, stated that the petitioners’ arguments in Case No. 261/PUU-XXIII/2025 regarding the Law No. 24 of 2007 on Disaster Management were inaccurate.
“It is not true that the determination of disaster status is entirely within the realm of subjectivity without legal parameters,” Bahtiar said in the Plenary Hearing Room of the MK, Jakarta.
The lawsuit stems from the floods and landslides in three provinces in Sumatra, which claimed 1,016 lives and displaced approximately 850,000 people as of December 15, 2025. The petitioners argued that the government should have declared a national disaster status, rather than simply referring to it as a “national priority.”
According to Bahtiar, the President’s authority in determining disaster status is discretionary, but it is still limited by clear legal norms. He explained that Article 7 paragraph (2) of Law No. 24 of 2007 regulates objective indicators for determining disaster status.
“The President’s discretion is cumulatively bound by the objective indicators stipulated in the law, not by unlimited free will,” he said.
These indicators include the number of casualties, property losses, damage to infrastructure, the scope of the affected area, and the socio-economic impact. In addition, to determine the level of disaster, the government also considers the size of the affected area, the availability of resources, the disruption of local capacity, the potential for subsequent disasters, and the duration of the recovery process.
Bahtiar emphasized that every use of discretion must comply with the General Principles of Good Governance (AUPB), be carried out in good faith, and be subject to legal and political administrative oversight.
“In disaster management, the response to save human lives is far more important than mere administrative matters,” he said.
The government also rejected the notion that the determination of disaster status is prone to politicization due to the absence of a Presidential Regulation (Perpres) as mandated in Article 7 paragraph (3). According to Bahtiar, the absence of a Presidential Regulation does not mean there is a legal vacuum, because technical arrangements are regulated in Law No. 24 of 2007 and Government Regulation No. 21 of 2008.
In addition, he emphasized that the delegation of regulations through a Presidential Regulation is intended to allow the government to respond to emergency situations more quickly and flexibly.
“Presidential Regulations are considered more flexible than Government Regulations, so they can respond to urgent policy needs, especially on technical operational aspects,” he said.
Regarding on-site handling, the government stated that it has deployed 90,109 personnel and a number of main weapon systems (alutsista) through a Task Force formed based on Presidential Decree No. 1 of 2026 to handle the disaster in Aceh, North Sumatra, and West Sumatra.
Meanwhile, the petitioners, including Elydya Kristina Simanullang and a number of affected residents, argued that the term “national priority” is not recognized in the disaster management legal regime. They believe that Article 7 of the Disaster Management Law only recognizes two categories, namely national disaster and regional disaster.
In their petition, the petitioners requested that the Court declare Article 7 paragraph (2) and paragraph (3) inconsistent with the 1945 Constitution, unless interpreted more clearly, including that further regulations should be made through a Government Regulation, not a Presidential Regulation.
In response, the government requested that the Court declare that the petitioners do not have legal standing and reject the petition in its entirety. The government believes that the provisions in Article 7 paragraph (2), paragraph (3), and Article 84 of Law No. 24 of 2007 have provided adequate normative basis for the state in handling extraordinary situations. (H-2)