Law on Animal Husbandry and Health Gives Freedom to Import Animals
Thursday, 5 November 2015
Cattle farmer Teguh Boediyana calls for a judicial review of the materials in Law No. 41 Year 2014 on Animal Husbandry and Health. Boediyana feels farmers are disadvantaged by Articles 36C line (1) and (3), 36D line (1) and 36E line (1) of the Law which defines the requirements for eligible exporting countries or zones in a country for ruminants (cattle, sheep, etc.).
Article 36C line (1) states, “The import of breeder ruminants to Indonesia could originate from a country or zone in a country which has fulfilled the requirements and procedures for import.”
Meanwhile Article 36C line (3) states, “The import of breeder ruminants from zones as mentioned in line (1), in addition to meeting provisions in line (2) should previously: a. Be declared free of infectious animal diseases in the country of origin by veterinary authorities of the country of origin according to conditions determined by the world animal health organization and acknowledged by veterinary authorities in Indonesia; b. Strengthen in country systems and surveillances; and c. Determine a specific entry point.”
The Petitioner feels disadvantaged by the regulation because the right to live safe, healthy and welfare will be lost. “The Petitioner argues that safe, healthy and welfare livelihood will be lost with the removal of the maximum security policy and the risk is very great. In the 18th century, Indonesia was affected by an outbreak which caused great loss in farmers. Many diseases emerged from imported animals. Five of the diseases were very detrimental, i.e. Hemorrhagic Septicemia, Anthrax, Surra, Foot and Mouth Disease, and Rinderpest,” said Petitioner attorney, Hermawanto, during preliminary examination court on Thursday (5/11) in the Constitutional Courthouse.
The Petitioner claims the article being tested will give unrestricted freedom to import meat to Indonesia. This will threated the health of livestock animals and suppress the local cattle industry. Moreover, in 2010 the Constitutional Court decided that for animal and animal product import Indonesia adopts the state-based system, not zone-based.
The Petitioner also considers the Law will cause widespread animal import policies in the midst of high dependency to animal and animal product import. The Petitioner argues the government should instead work to improve domestic livestock industries and small-scale farms. Therefore, Boediyana petitions for the phrase “or zone in a country” in Article 36C line (1), word “zone” in Article 36C line (3), word “zone” in Article 36D line (1), and phrase “or zone in a country” in Article 36E line (1) of the Law on Animal Husbandry and Health be declared contradictory to Constitution 1945 and no longer have legal power.
In response to the petition, Constitution Judge I Dewa Gede Palguna recommended the Petitioner to provide detailed descriptions of state-based and zone-based terms. “You argue that zone is unconstitutional. What is the difference between state-based and zone-based? For example, why is it unconstitutional? Why is state-based considered constitutional? Why does zone-based become unconstitutional? That is what you must elaborate,” said Palguna.
Meanwhile, Constitution Judge Manahan MP Sitompul said the zone-based system in beef import to Indonesia is intended as a solution to meat availability in Indonesia. “It could become local supply. Because there isn’t always enough for consumption for all of Indonesia. That is this rule exists, to find a solution, if local supply is insufficient for domestic consumption,” said Manahan.
Besides Teguh Boediyana, there were other Petitioners for this case registered as no. 129/PUU-XIII/2015. The other petitioners were Mangku Sitepu as veterinarian from the Indonesia Milk Cooperative Association (GKSI), Gun Gun Muhammad Lutfi Nugraha as farmer and meat consumer, Anaswi as meat trader, and Rachmat Pambudy as professor and meat consumer. (Nano Tresna Arfana/IR)