Indonesia Constitutional Court rejects challenge seeking clear standards for disaster funding adequacy

Indonesia’s Constitutional Court has rejected a petition by four residents of Palangkaraya, Central Kalimantan, who sought to challenge provisions of the country’s Disaster Management Law over the lack of clear criteria for determining whether government funding for disaster prevention and response is adequate.

The petition, registered as Case No. 369/PUU-XXIV/2026, challenged the word “adequate” in Article 6(e) and Article 8(d) of Law No. 24 of 2007 on Disaster Management.

The applicants argued that the term lacked objective standards for assessing whether central and regional governments had allocated sufficient funds to address disaster risks, including recurring forest and land fires.

The court announced its decision at a plenary hearing at its main building in Jakarta on Thursday, 29 October.

Constitutional Justice Liliek Prisbawono Adi said the applicants’ arguments were legally unfounded and that the challenged wording did not contradict the 1945 Constitution, according to state news agency Antara.

The four applicants were Damai Alam Usop, Krismes Sento Shaloho, Davit Purwodsrantau and Paulus Alfons Yance Dhanarto. All are residents of Palangka Raya who have been affected by forest and land fires.

Court says the wording does not violate the Constitution

In its considerations, the court rejected the argument that the phrase “adequate” in Article 6(e) and Article 8(d) was unconstitutional.

Article 6(e) establishes the central government’s responsibility to allocate an adequate disaster-management budget through the State Budget (APBN). Article 8(d) sets out a corresponding responsibility for regional governments to provide disaster-management funding through their Regional Budgets (APBD).

The applicants argued that the law did not specify minimum criteria for determining whether those funding obligations had been met. They sought a conditional interpretation requiring regional budgets to be prepared professionally and proportionately to each region’s level of disaster risk.

Liliek said the proposed interpretation would introduce new parameters into the legislation. In the court’s view, this could create legal uncertainty and narrow the meaning of the word “adequate” as used in the law.

The court therefore concluded that the applicants had not established that the challenged provisions were inconsistent with the Constitution.

Court points to legislation governing central-regional finances

The applicants also argued that the wording in Article 8(d) should be assessed against Article 18A(2) of the 1945 Constitution, which provides for fair and balanced financial relations between the central government and regional administrations.

Liliek said the constitutional provision mandated that such financial relations be regulated by law. The legislature had fulfilled that requirement, among other measures, through Law No. 1 of 2022 on Financial Relations between the Central Government and Regional Governments.

That law regulates mechanisms for transferring funds and financing regional administrations, he said.

The court considered that the applicants’ concerns about the distribution of disaster-management funding were related to fiscal-transfer policies, regional spending priorities and the implementation of existing legislation.

Those matters did not establish that the phrase “adequate” in Article 8(d) was unconstitutional, Liliek said.

“Therefore, all of the applicants’ arguments are legally unfounded,” he said, as quoted by Antara.

Residents cite the burden of recurring forest fires

The four residents argued that the absence of objective criteria for assessing adequate disaster-management funding created legal uncertainty and weakened the protection of their constitutional right to a healthy environment.

They said forest and land fires were a recurring threat in Central Kalimantan, where extensive peatland areas are vulnerable to fires. In their petition, they argued that regions facing higher disaster risks should receive funding proportionate to the scale of those risks and the needs of prevention, emergency response and recovery.

The applicants also contended that the phrase “adequate” did not provide a measurable basis for determining whether the central and regional governments had fulfilled their budgetary responsibilities.

During an earlier hearing on 8 October, their lawyer, Aryo Nugroho Waluyo, told the court that the issue was not the absence of a legal obligation to fund disaster management, but the lack of minimum parameters connecting budget allocations with identifiable disaster risks and management needs.

The court’s official account of that hearing said the applicants had asked for the funding obligation to cover the pre-disaster, emergency-response and post-disaster stages, with allocations made transparently and accountably.

At a subsequent hearing on 21 October, the applicants submitted revisions to their petition, further explaining the constitutional losses they said they had suffered as residents of an area affected by forest and land fires.

The court’s rejection leaves the wording of Articles 6(e) and 8(d) unchanged. The ruling addressed the constitutionality of the phrase “adequate” in those provisions, rather than determining the amount of disaster-management funding that should be allocated to Central Kalimantan or other fire-prone regions.