Representative from Government, Director General of Animal Husbandry and Animal Health, vet. Prabowo Respatiyo Caturroso, M.M. Ph.D when giving information before the court of special panel session in the Constitutional Court, Tuesday (29/3).
Jakarta, MKOnline - Veterinarian Certification was not imposed on dog’s meat because according to the stipulation in World’s Animal Health Organization (Office Internationale des Epizooties, OIE) and Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC), dog’s meat is not included in meats to be consumed by people. Dogs belonged to the pet category or pet animal. If dog’s meat were consumed by people, according to OIE and CAC, it would be considered as a violation in animal welfare principle.
The same thing with veterinarian certification was not imposed on pork retailer but to the animal husbandry unit. “Veterinarian Certificate on pigs is conducted on the production system in animal husbandry unit which have to meet the requirement of veterinarian people sanitary, environment sanitary and the husbandry, and not on pork retailing.”
That was the conclusion from Government’s information delivered by the Director General of Animal Husbandry and Animal Health of the Ministry of Agriculture, dr.vet. Prabowo Respatiyo Caturroso M.M. Ph.D in front of the Special Panel Board of Justices of the Constitutional Court (The Court), Tuesday (29/3). The information was a response to the review of the constitutionality of Article 58 Paragraph (4) of Act No. 18/2009 on Animal Husbandry and Animal Health pleaded by Deni Juhaeni, I Griawan Wijaya, Netty Retta Herawaty Hutabarat and Bagus Putu Mantra.
The Petitioners who works as eggs sellers, pork and dog meat traders, and pig breeders claimed that their constitutional rights were damaged due to the enactment of Article 58 paragraph (4) of Act 18/2009 stating that “Animal products which are produced and/or imported to the area of Union Republic of Indonesia to be distributed must be accompanied with Veterinarian Certificate and Halal Certificate.” The stipulation according to the Petitioners was against Article 27 Paragraph (2), Article 28A, Article 28D Paragraph (1), and Article 28I Paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution.
The session for case No. 2/PUU-IX/2011 was conducted by Special Panel Board of Justice with Constitutional Justice Maria Farida Indrati as the Chairwoman accompanied by M. Akil Mochtar, Muhammad Alim, Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi and Hamdan Zoelva as members.
According to Prabowo, the work of Petitioner 1 did not fall in the category of work being regulated in Article 58 paragraph (4) of the Act; therefore the enactment of the law did not cause any constitutional loss to Petitioner 1 as chicken eggs merchant.
Meanwhile for Petitioner 2, 3 and 4 who each works as pork seller, dog meat seller and pig breeder, their work was impossible to be accompanied by Halal Certificate as arranged in Article 58 paragraph (4) of the Act. This, continued Prabowo, had been according to the General Guidelines for Use of the Term “Halal” CAC/GL 24-1997.
The definition of Halal in the stipulation of Article 58 paragraph (4) was intended for certain animals and products as required. “The Petitioners themselves stated that the products they sell are not Halal,” ended Prabowo.
The Petitioners said Prabowo, was not very aware in understanding the stipulation of the article. “The Petitioners should have noticed that the stipulation of Article 58 paragraph (4) of the Act on Animal Husbandry and Animal Health does not stand alone, but it is related to Paragraph (6) which stated that further regulation as mentioned in paragraph (1) to paragraph (5) is arranged by a Regulation of Minister of Agriculture,” he continued.
Negative Implication
The Government responded to the judicial review by thinking the opposite. If the stipulation of Article 58 paragraph (4) was announced as not having a binding legal force, it would cause a negative implication as there would not be a food safety and health guarantee for animal products which are products and imported to area of Republic of Indonesia to be distributed.
Then on the worries that there might be a legal disharmony, the friction between acts could be avoided because the Act had considered all existing legislation products; namely Act 16/1992 on Animal, Fish and Plant Quarantine, Act 7/1994 on Ratification of Agreement of Assembling the World Threat Organization, Act 7/1996 on Food and Act 8/1999 on Consumer Protection. Meanwhile, another negative implication would be a horizontal conflicts between followers of different religions.
Based on the arguments delivered in Prabowo’s explanation, Government side wishes that The Court in the ruling would reject the Petitioners’ petition in its entirety. (Nur Rosihin Ana/mh/YDJ)
Tuesday, March 29, 2011 | 17:06 WIB 227