Opportunity to Sue the Indonesian Government Over the Sumatra Floods |

---

Rain fell nonstop from late November to early December 2025. Many said they had never experienced such intense rainfall. The rain poured down heavily for tens of minutes. The rain only stopped as a drizzle for about five minutes, then poured again for tens of minutes. This continued for days from November 25th to early December 2025.

The Meteorology, Climatology, and Geophysics Agency (BMKG) had warned of the potential for tropical cyclone Senyar, which would bring heavy and extreme rainfall. This demonstrates the weakness of disaster mitigation efforts by the government, from the central to the regional levels.
The floods paralyzed transportation.

Telephone connections were disrupted, and some were even cut off. Transportation was also paralyzed when the floods occurred. The aftereffects were immediately felt, such as the disruption of the supply of basic necessities, and the economy stalled due to the destruction of infrastructure such as roads and bridges.

The floods brought all community activities to a standstill. Residents who were not victims also felt the impact. Basic necessities became difficult to obtain, and even if they were available, prices were very high.

Chicken eggs, which are usually sold for Rp 50,000 per carton, have risen to Rp 80,000, and some are even selling for Rp 100,000. Appeals from various parties, from the government to religious leaders, have had no effect on lowering prices. Similarly, low-quality rice, which is usually sold for Rp 60,000 per 5 kg, has risen to Rp 80,000 to Rp 100,000. Already expensive, staple foods are becoming increasingly difficult to obtain.

Responding to the victims is extremely slow. On the ground, the community is the dominant force helping the community. Victims are helping victims. In Blang Naleung Mameh, Muara Satu District, Lhokseumawe City, residents were the first to evacuate victims, directing vehicles along the road. Four days after the disaster, authorities were only seen.

The government should have adopted a swift and measured disaster management strategy to minimize casualties and implement a swift recovery process. Two weeks after the disaster, power outages and communication disruptions remain. This demonstrates the government's weak resilience to disasters.

The first party responsible is the government for its negligence in responding to the threat of disaster. It is the government that issues mining permits, oil palm plantation permits, and forest land use permits. The police ignore illegal logging. Forest and environmental damage can only be perpetrated by those with substantial economic resources, power, and influence.

The state cannot be sued for natural disasters. However, it must be held accountable for protecting its citizens, which has proven to be a failure, with over 1,000 deaths, not to mention those who have been injured, missing, and whose property has been lost.
The 1945 Constitution at least states that citizens have the right to life (Article 28A), the right to a good and healthy environment (Article 28H Paragraph 1), and Article 28I Paragraph 4, which emphasizes that protecting human rights is the responsibility of the state.

Furthermore, there is Law Number 39/1999 concerning Human Rights. Article 9 guarantees the right to life and to defend life. Meanwhile, the government's obligation to respect, protect, and fulfill human rights is stipulated in Articles 71 and 72.

Law Number 24/2007 concerning Disaster Management also requires the government to mitigate disasters, provide early warnings, and protect vulnerable groups such as children, pregnant women, and the elderly.

When viewed from the perspective of pre-, during, and post-disaster situations, there is scope for lawsuits against the government for human rights violations. Before the disaster, the government failed to prevent or protect by allowing environmental damage, systematic violations of spatial planning, and ignoring early warnings.

The government can be accused of violating human rights during the flood disaster due to slow evacuations, uneven distribution of aid, and a tendency to politicize it, including the rejection of foreign aid, and concealing emergency information by claiming the situation was under control.

Finally, in the post-disaster period, the government also violated human rights by leaving refugees without basic services such as clothing, food, and healthcare. Rehabilitation and reconstruction efforts lacked transparency, and the blueprint for their implementation remained unclear until the third week of the disaster, and victims received no justice or adequate compensation. The promise of compensation is far below the losses experienced by the victims.***

---