Petitioners deliver revisions to their application during the judicial review hearing of the Disaster Management Law at the Constitutional Court’s panel courtroom, Wednesday (21/1/2026). Photo: Public Relations/Panji

---

JAKARTA,  MKRI – Elydya Kristina Simanullang, a university student who was directly affected by a natural disaster in Humbang Hasundutan Regency, North Sumatra Province, in late November 2025, has joined as a petitioner in Case Number 261/PUU-XXIII/2025. The petition concerns a judicial review of Article 7 paragraphs (2) and (3) of Law Number 24 of 2007 on Disaster Management against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (UUD NRI 1945).

“In the natural disaster, Petitioner I suffered extremely grave and profound losses, as the disaster claimed the lives of her father, mother, and one of her younger siblings, causing Petitioner I to lose her immediate family members as well as the primary support system of her family’s livelihood,” stated Christian Adrianus Sihite, who also recently joined as a petitioner in this case during the revision hearing on Wednesday (21/1/2026).

Accordingly, the petition is filed by seven petitioners: Elydya Kristina Simanullang (Petitioner I), Doris Manggalang Raja Sagala (Petitioner II), Jonswaris Sinaga (Petitioner III), Robinar V.K. Panggabean (Petitioner IV), Amudin Laia (Petitioner V), Roy Sitompul (Petitioner VI), and Christian Adrianus Sihite (Petitioner VII). The Petitioners assert that they possess constitutional standing to file the judicial review of Article 7 paragraphs (2) and (3) of Law 24/2007.

The review stems from flood and landslide disasters that struck Aceh, North Sumatra, and West Sumatra, resulting in 1,016 fatalities and approximately 850,000 displaced persons as of 15 December 2025. Despite the scale of the disaster, the Government did not designate it as a national disaster. Proposals to declare the floods and landslides in Aceh, North Sumatra, and West Sumatra as a national disaster were reportedly voiced by nearly all factions in the House of Representatives (DPR), including several regional heads who acknowledged that they no longer had the capacity to manage the disaster impacts in their respective regions. However, instead of declaring the disasters a national disaster, the Government categorized them merely as a “national priority.”

According to the Petitioners, disaster management law does not recognize the term “national priority,” as Article 7 of Law 24/2007 only regulates the determination of national and regional disaster status. The Government’s use of the term “national priority,” the Petitioners argue, is more akin to a development project framework that does not directly focus on disaster victims—particularly given that, to date, more than a thousand victims have been declared dead, with the number potentially still rising.

Article 7 paragraphs (2) and (3) of Law 24/2007 read in full:

“Paragraph (2): The determination of national and regional disaster status and levels as referred to in paragraph (1) letter c shall include indicators comprising: a. number of casualties; b. property losses; c. damage to infrastructure and facilities; d. geographic scope of the affected area; and e. resulting socio-economic impacts.
Paragraph (3): Further provisions regarding the determination of disaster status and levels as referred to in paragraph (2) shall be regulated by Presidential Regulation.”

In their petitum, the Petitioners request the Court to declare Article 7 paragraph (2) of the Disaster Management Law contrary to the 1945 Constitution and lacking binding legal force insofar as it is not interpreted to mean:

“The determination of national and regional disaster status and levels as referred to in paragraph (1) letter c shall include indicators, among others: a. number of casualties; b. property losses; c. damage to infrastructure and facilities; d. geographic scope of the affected area; and e. resulting socio-economic impacts.”

They further request the Court to declare Article 7 paragraph (3) of the Disaster Management Law contrary to the 1945 Constitution and lacking binding legal force insofar as it is not interpreted to mean:

“Further provisions regarding the determination of disaster status and levels as referred to in paragraph (2) shall be regulated by Government Regulation.” (*)

Author                         : Mimi Kartika
Editor                          : Lulu Anjarsari P.
Public Relations          : Andhini S.F.

Translator                    : SO

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.

---