World · East Asia & Pacific · 2 hrs ago
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court Rejects Forest Fire Victims’ Petition
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court rejected a petition by four forest fire-affected residents of Palangka Raya, Central Kalimantan.
They challenged the word “adequate” in two provisions of the country’s 2007 Disaster Management Law.
The residents argued that the law gives no objective measure of adequate disaster funding, creating uncertainty and failing to protect their right to a healthy environment.
They also sought a requirement for regional budgets to reflect each area’s disaster risk.
The court said that interpretation could create legal uncertainty, and that concerns about funding transfers and spending priorities were not questions about whether the law was constitutional.
It pointed to a separate 2022 law that sets out financial relations between central and regional governments.
The court found the challenge legally unfounded, so the petition was rejected.
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court rejected a petition by four forest-fire-affected residents of Palangka Raya challenging parts of the Disaster Management Law.
The court ruled that their arguments against the word “adequate” in the law lacked a legal basis.
The residents argued that the law set no objective criteria for adequate disaster-management funding and failed to protect their right to a healthy environment.
The court said the residents’ proposed interpretation could create legal uncertainty and that their concerns about uneven fiscal burdens involved policy and implementation.
The ruling was delivered at a plenary session at the court’s main building in Jakarta.
- Who
- Indonesia’s Constitutional Court and four forest-fire-affected residents of Palangka Raya.
- What
- The court rejected the residents’ petition challenging parts of the Disaster Management Law.
- When
- October 30, 2026.
- Where
- The ruling was delivered in Jakarta; the applicants were residents of Palangka Raya, Central Kalimantan.
- Why
- The court found the applicants’ arguments legally unfounded and said their proposed interpretation could create legal uncertainty.
Forest-fire-affected residents of Palangka Raya
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court
Legal challenge
Forest-fire-affected residents of Palangka Raya
The residents argued that “adequate” funding lacked objective criteria and created legal uncertainty.
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court
The court ruled that the word “adequate” was not unconstitutional.
Disaster funding
Forest-fire-affected residents of Palangka Raya
The residents sought a requirement that regional budgets reflect each region’s disaster risk.
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court
The court said that interpretation would introduce new parameters and could create legal uncertainty.
Fiscal burden
Forest-fire-affected residents of Palangka Raya
The residents argued that concentrated fire risks in peatland regions such as Central Kalimantan created an uneven fiscal burden.
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court
The court said fiscal transfers, spending priorities and implementation were policy issues, not grounds to invalidate the phrase.
The petition was registered as Case No. 369/PUU-XXIV/2026.
The Constitutional Court rejected the petition at a plenary session in Jakarta.
- Applicants
- 4 residents of Palangka Raya
- Case number
- 369/PUU-XXIV/2026
- Law challenged
- Law No. 24 of 2007 on Disaster Management
- Provisions challenged
- The phrase “adequate” in Article 6(e) and Article 8(d)
- Ruling location
- Constitutional Court’s main building, Jakarta
What people are saying
Therefore, the applicants’ arguments that the phrase ‘adequate’ in Article 6(e) and Article 8(d) of Law No. 24 of 2007 is unconstitutional are unfounded and must be declared legally unjustified.
Therefore, all of the applicants’ arguments are legally unfounded.