Applicant’s Attorney Hermawanto explains petition revision in front of Justice Panel, on Wednesday (18/2) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ifa

The Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi –MK) holds revision session on Act Number 41 Year 2014 of Husbandry and Animal Health (UU Peternakan) on Wednesday (18/11) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. As known, cattle breeder Teguh Boediyana, veterinarian Mangku Sitepu, et al, file petition which registered in Case Number 129/PUU-XIII/2015. They consider harmed by Article 36C (1) and (3), Article 36D (1), and Article 36E (1) Act of Husbandry and Animal Health which regulate the requirement of country or zone in ruminant import.  

Article 36C (1) Act a quo stated, “Importation of parent ruminant livestock into the area of the Republic of Indonesia may originate from a country or a zone within a country that has met import term and procedures.” (“Pemasukan ternak ruminansia indukan ke dalam wilayah Negara Kesatuan Republik Indonesia dapat berasal dari suatu negara atau zona dalam suatu negara yang telah memenuhi persyaratan dan tata carapemasukannya.”)

Article 36C (3) Act a quo stated, “Importation of parent ruminant livestock which originated from the zone referred in paragraph (1) shall met provisions as referred in paragraph (2) and initially: a) Declared free of contagious animal diseases in origin country by the authorized veterinary in origin country and in accordance with the provisions determined by world animal health agency and recognized by Indonesian authorized veterinarian; b) conducted system strengthening and surveillance domestically; and c) defined specific entry point.”   (“Pemasukan ternak ruminansia indukan yang berasal dari zona sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1), selain harus memenuhi ketentuan sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (2) juga harus terlebih dahulu:  a) Dinyatakan bebas penyakit hewan menular di negara asal oleh otoritas veteriner negara asal sesuai dengan ketentuan yang ditetapkan badan kesehatan hewan dunia dan diakui oleh otoritas veteriner Indonesia; b. Dilakukan penguatan sistem dan pelaksanaan surveilan di dalam negeri; dan c. Ditetapkan tempat pemasukan tertentu.”)

Applicant’s Attorney Hermawanto says that there is Applicant changing in the revision. “First, we revise on Applicant. Applicant H. Asnawi in Applicant number 5 V is withdrawn, replacing by Mutowif. Applicant III Dedi Setiady who previously on behalf of his position as head of the Indonesian Dairy Cooperative Association (Gabungan Koperasi Susu Indonesia –GKSI) is changed into on behalf of his individual,” said Hermawanto in front of Justice Panel led by Constitutional Justice Manahan MP Sitompul.

Hermawanto also asserts that his party doesn’t revise petition demands as advised by Justice Panel on previous session. “On previous session, Justice Panel delivered that whether we should considered to revise petition demand into conditionally constitutional. We have discussed with our principals. The principals remains in their stance; the petition demands that the phrase ‘or zone within a country’ (‘atau zona dalam suatu negara’) and the word ‘zone’ (‘zona’) in Article 36C (1), Article 36C (3), Article 36D (1), and Article 36E (1) declared contrary to the 1945 Constitution,” explained Hermawanto.   

On previous session, the Applicants argued the Articles reviewed had provided broad freedom to meat import in Indonesia. According to the Applicants, such freedom would threaten animal health and local cattle business. Moreover in 2010, the Constitutional Court had decided that Indonesia adopts state-based system, instead of zone-based system. (Panji Erawan/IR)