Witness Chilafat Dalimunthe for Petitioners of case No. 43 giving her statement virtually at the judicial review hearing of the Law on the COVID-19 Pandemic, Tuesday (27/10). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.
JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—Since the start of the spread of COVID-19 in the country in March 2020, hospital staff has been preparing personal protective equipment (PPE) and all things relating to the standard operational procedure (SOP) for handling COVID-19 patients by themselves as the government’s attention in the regions have been very lacking. Patients coming to the hospital are offered minimal facilities, even by COVID-19 referral hospitals, said Chilafat Dalimunthe as a witness for the Petitioners of case No. 43/PUU-XVIII/2020, Ahmad Sabri Lubis and 9 other individuals. The sixth judicial review hearing of Law No. 2 of 2020 on the Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 1 of 2020 regarding the Stipulation of the State’s Financial Policy and Fiscal Stability for the Mitigation of the COVID-19 Pandemic and/or in Order to Face Threats That Endanger the National Economy and/or the Financial System’s Stability into Law was held by the Constitutional Court on Tuesday, October 27, 2020.
Also read: NGOs and Researchers Challenge COVID-19 Law
Dalimunthe is an anesthetist at the regional general hospital (RSUD) of Teweh, North Barito, Central Kalimantan. She testified that her hospital, which is a COVID-19 referral hospital, has minimal facilities to handle COVID-19 patients. “There should’ve been ventilators to help COVID-19 patients. We have some but they’re not as sophisticated as the patients need them to be. Most of them are broken,” she said before Chief Justice Anwar Usman and the other eight constitutional justices.
Also read: Petitioners of COVID-19 Law Reaffirm Arguments
Dalimunthe, who is a member of the Central Kalimantan COVID-19 mitigation medical team, said diagnostic programs such as the rapid antibody testing and the swab RT-PCR testing had been barely accessible at the beginning of the pandemic and doctors had had to provide them on their own expense. The hospitals also had issues with minimal medicine supplies. “We heard that doctors at the regions would receive incentives from the government, especially those directly handle COVID-19 patients. [Unfortunately], we haven’t received any. However, it didn’t diminish our spirit to handle COVID-19 patients,” she added.
She also said although North Barito, Central Kalimantan is in the red-back zone, her team has found it difficult to collect valid data of COVID-19 patients because there is fear among the community of being examined and testing positive for COVID-19. This has hindered COVID-19 mitigation in the region.
Also read: Village Funds Delayed, Two Village Chiefs Challenge COVID-19 Law
The virtual hearing was for seven cases: No. 37/PUU-XVIII/2020, No. 42/PUU-XVIII/2020, No. 43/PUU-XVIII/2020, No. 45/PUU-XVIII/2020, No. 47/PUU-XVIII/2020, No. 49/PUU-XVIII/2020, and No. 75/PUU-XVIII/2020. All petitioners argued that the COVID-19 Law is formally and materially defective that it must be declared unconstitutional and not legally binding.
Also read: Sri Mulyani: COVID-19 Law Protects the Public
The petition No. 37/PUU-XVIII/2020 was filed by the Indonesian Foundation to Strengthen Civil Society's Participation, Partnership, and Initiatives (YAPPIKA); Desiana Samosir; Muhammad Maulana; and Syamsuddin Alimsyah. Their reasons for the formal judicial review petition are: first, the Regional Representatives Council (DPD) was not involved in the discussion to determine whether the COVID-19 Perppu was approved or not; second, the virtual House (DPR) meeting was likely not have been attended by MPs.
The Petitioners of case No. 42/PUU-XVIII/2020, Iwan Sumule and the other 49 Pro-Democracy (ProDem) activists, argue that if the COVID-19 Law and its appendix are enacted, there will be no more discussions on the revised state budget (APBN-P) between the Government and the House as the president can revise the details of the state budget and stipulate that revision unilaterally in a presidential regulation, while Article 23C of the 1945 Constitution mandates that all matters related to the state finances be regulated with a law, not a presidential regulation.
Also read:
House: Ratification of COVID-19 Law, Legal Basis of Financial Authority
Expert: Budgeting during Emergency Must Be Transparent and Accountable
The Petitioners of case No. 43/PUU-XVIII/2020, Ahmad Sabri Lubis and 9 other individuals, argued that Perppu No. 1 of 2020, which is stipulated in Law No. 2 of 2020, doesn’t regulate the “compelling crisis situation” clearly and rather focuses on the Government’s authority to set the state budget deficit beyond the 3% GDP limit until fiscal year 2023.
The Petitioner of case No. 45/PUU-XVIII/2020 Sururudin argues that Article 2 and Article 12 paragraph (2) of the COVID-19 Law gives the president a great power to manage state finances without involving the House from 2020 to 2023. It is contrary to the scope referred to in Chapter I Article 1 of the a quo law, which clearly regulates the state’s need of the 2020 budget to implement the administration. However, Article 2 paragraph (1) letter a gives the Government the authority to exclude the House in managing state finances until 2023.
The Petitioners of case No. 47/PUU-XVIII/2020, village heads and village consultative bodies members Triono and 26 others, understand that the funds might be delayed or redirected to other causes due to COVID-19, but stated that it would be problematic if village funds were to be declared null relating to state financial policies for COVID-19 mitigation and/or in order to face threats that endanger the national economy. They also believe that Article 28 paragraph (8) of the COVID-19 Law is not in accordance with Article 2 paragraph (1) letter l, which doesn’t specify that the pandemic will motivate the central government to eliminate village funds.
Also read: Abdul Chair Ramadhan: COVID-19 Law Violates Criminal Justice System
The Petitioner of case No. 49/PUU-XVIII/2020, advocate Damai Hari Lubis, challenges the provision on state budget in the a quo perppu, which has to refer to the principles stipulated in Article 23 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, especially on the transparency and accountability of the use of the state budget for the people’s welfare, which cannot be interpreted in exclusive conditions but in any condition. He believes the enactment of Article 27 paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of the COVID-19 Law disregards any abuse by public officials in using the state budget for COVID-19 mitigation, which will lead to legal setbacks.
The petition No. 75/PUU-XVIII/2020 was filed by 47 petitioners, including M. Sirajuddin Syamsuddin, Sri Edi Swasono, and H. M. Amien Rais. They argue that the approval of Perppu No. 1 of 2020 into Law No. 2 of 2020 by the House were done in the same session as its stipulation when it was supposed to be in “the next sessions,” according to Article 249 of Regulation No. 1 of 2020 on the House’s Code of Conduct relating to session year and session period. The approval of the perppu violated Article 22 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. As the House had received the perppu in session III, it must be approved/rejected in session IV. In addition, Article 22D paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution stipulates that the Regional Representatives Council (DPD) should’ve participated in the discussion of Perppu No. 1 of 2020 as the norm concerns the central and regional budget. However, the House discussed the perppu without the DPD’s involvement.
Before concluding the hearing, Chief Justice Anwar Usman said the hearing would resume on Thursday, November 12, 2020 at 11:00 WIB to hear the statement of experts for the Petitioner of case No. 43/PUU-XVIII/2020 Sururudin and the Petitioner of case No. 49/PUU-XVIII/2020 Damai Hari Lubis.
Writer: Sri Pujianti
Editor: Nur R.
PR: Fitri Yuliana
Translator: Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Translation uploaded on 10/30/2020 22:14 WIB
Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian version, the Indonesian version will prevail.
Tuesday, October 27, 2020 | 13:35 WIB 159