Hermawanto, the Petitioners’ legal counsel, at the material judicial review hearing of Law No. 41 of 2014 on the Amendment to Law No. 18 of 2009 on Animal Husbandry and Animal Health, Monday (11/14/2022). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

Monday, November 14, 2022 | 16:01 WIB

JAKARTA (MKRI)—The Constitutional Court (MK) held a material judicial review hearing of Article 36E paragraphs (1) and (2) of Law No. 41 of 2014 on the Amendment to Law No. 18 of 2009 on Animal Husbandry and Animal Health (PKH Law) on Monday, November 14, 2022. The case No. 105/PUU-XX/2022 was filed by cattle farmers Teguh Boediyana, Gun Gun Muhamad Lutfi Nugraha, Ferry Kusmawan, and Irfan Arif (Petitioners I-IV).

The Petitioners challenge Article 36E of the PKH Law, which reads, “1. In certain cases, by taking into account the national interest, it may be possible to import Livestock and/or Animal Products from a country or zone within a country that has fulfilled the requirements and procedures for the importation of Livestock and/or Animal Products. 2. Further provisions regarding certain matters and procedures for their entry as referred to in paragraph (1) shall be regulated by a Government Regulation.”

The Petitioners’ legal counsel Hermawanto said virtually that the PKH Law had been misinterpreted and misused to justify importation of animal products from countries that are not free from foot and mouth diseases (FMD), when it can only be justified temporarily. Despite the lack of urgency, the Government keeps importing animal products from those countries, resulting in the FMD outbreak.

“The entry of FMD in Indonesia has resulted in losses among farmers, millions of whom are small-scale, whose cattle—cows, buffaloes, goats, sheep—and ducks/chickens serve as their economic resource, saving, and asset,” he said.

The entry of cheap meat from various countries that are not yet free from key FMDs will hit people’s cattle-farming businesses due to very low prices. “In the end, it will destroy the economy of the farmers, including the Petitioners,” he added.

In their petitum, the Petitioners requested that the Court declare the phrase ‘in certain cases’ in the a quo article unconstitutional and not legally binding if not interpreted to mean “urgent situation due to disaster as per the Disaster Management Law.”

Justices’ Advice

In response to the petition, Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra advised the Petitioners to follow the standard judicial review petition format. “In the petition you added many things outside of what is detailed in the Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK) No. 2 of 2021,” he said.

Similarly, Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul advised that the Petitioners base the petition on Article 10 of PMK No. 2 of 2021 on the Procedural Law for Judicial Review Cases.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh (panel chair) requested that the Petitioners consider whether to challenge only Article 36E paragraphs (1) and (2) or also the elucidation. “Clarify that so that the legal standing, background of the petition, posita, and petitum will be clear,” he said.

Before concluding the hearing, Justice Foekh announced that the Petitioners could revise the petition until Monday, November 28 at 13:30 WIB. 

Writer        : Bayu Wicaksono
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Muhammad Halim
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 11/15/2022 10:05 WIB

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian versions, the Indonesian version will prevail.

---