Ministry of Health responds to Dharma Pongrekun's challenge to the Health Law at the Constitutional Court

Former deputy head of the National Cyber and Encryption Agency (BSSN), Dharma Pongrekun, has filed a petition with the Constitutional Court (MK) challenging a number of provisions in the Health Law and requested the removal of rules that permit limiting the handling of extraordinary health events (KLB) or outbreaks. The Ministry of Health (Kemenkes) has spoken. ‘The government will follow the entire court process in accordance with applicable legal mechanisms and will prepare the necessary explanations and arguments,’ said Aji Muhawarman, the Head of the Public Communications and Information Bureau of Kemenkes, to reporters on Wednesday, 20 May 2026. Aji added that his side is still studying the articles challenged by Dharma. ‘We are still thoroughly examining the materials of the applicant’s petition, including those provisions,’ he explained. ‘In principle, the regulations in the Health Law are designed to strengthen the protection of public health, including in health emergencies, while still observing the provisions of the law and the rights of citizens. Dharma’s lawsuit: According to the MK’s official site on Tuesday, 19 May 2026, Dharma’s suit is registered under number 172/PUU-XXIV/2026. The following articles are challenged: - Article 353 paragraph (2) letter g of Law No. 17/2023 on Health: (2) The criteria for KLB as referred to in paragraph (1) consist of: g. other criteria set by the Minister; - Article 394 of the Health Law: Every person is obliged to comply with all activities for handling KLB and outbreaks conducted by the Central and Regional Governments. - Article 395 paragraph (1) of the Health Law: Every person who becomes aware of a sick person or suspected illness resulting in KLB or outbreaks must immediately report to village/urban authorities and/or nearby health service facilities. - Article 400 of the Health Law: Every person is prohibited from obstructing the implementation of the handling of KLB and outbreaks. - Article 446 of the Health Law: Every person who does not comply with or who deliberately obstructs the implementation of KLB and outbreak handling as referred to in Article 400 shall be punished with a maximum fine of Rp 500 million. Dharma’s grounds for the suit: Dharma outlines his reasons for challenging these articles. He notes that Article 353 paragraph (2) letter g of the Health Law does not regulate clear parameters for ’other criteria set by the Minister.’ He says he understands the phrase is intended to give flexibility to the government to respond to dynamic health threats, but worries that it opens space for discretionary power that is too broad and uncontrolled. ‘The absence of adequate limitations, whether in the form of objective indicators, scientific parameters, or effective supervisory mechanisms, makes that authority prone to subjective and arbitrary use. This becomes more crucial given that the designation of a Health Emergency Status (KLB) has wide legal consequences and systemic impacts, including emergency budget allocation, mobility restrictions, and potential limitations on civil rights,’ he said. Next, Dharma argues Article 394 of the Health Law is coercive; he says there is no explanation of the scope of actions to be followed and the supervisory mechanism is unclear. ‘In such conditions, citizens, including the Applicant, are placed in an imbalance before the state, because they are required to submit to a norm that cannot be predicted, non-transparent, and potentially applied arbitrarily,’ he added. Furthermore, Dharma contends Article 395 paragraph (1) of the Health Law risks violating privacy rights. He notes that the provision requiring anyone who knows of a sick person or someone suspected of being ill and potentially causing an outbreak to report to authorities could infringe individual freedoms. ‘Article 395 paragraph (1) of the Health Law is not accompanied by clear parameters on the conditions that require reporting, the types of events that must be reported, or the limitations on the subjects obliged to report,’ he stated. Dharma requests that Article 400 of the Health Law be repealed due to multiple interpretations, arguing that the provision prohibiting hindering outbreak response can create interpretive conflicts. ‘The ambiguity of the norma’s formulation in Article 400 of the Health Law opens wide and uncontrolled room for interpretation, potentially leading to arbitrary enforcement. The norm also fails to meet the principle of proportionality, as it does not clearly distinguish between acts that truly impede outbreak response and actions that are part of citizens’ constitutional rights, such as expressing opinions, criticism, or other forms of public participation,’ he said. For information, the explanation of Article 400 of the Health Law lists several acts that hinder outbreak response, including those that do not comply with the provisions for handling KLB and outbreaks, such as refusal to undergo quarantine or isolation, or not allowing efforts to handle or eradicate risk factors related to transport, goods, and the environment exposed, including livestock/pets. Going back to Dharma, he also argues that Article 446 of the Health Law could cause over-criminalisation. He notes there is no clear act meant by ‘hindering’ outbreak response, which leads to wide interpretation. ‘The norma a quo not only loses its legal basis (ratio legis) because it stems from provisions that are redundant and overlapping with Article 400 of the Health Law, but also contains a delict formulation that is vague, subject to multiple interpretations, and does not meet the lex certa principle, thereby opening space for criminalisation.’