Jakarta, 27 May 2022 | Lawsuit against the Minister of Health (Defendant I) and the Minister of Communication and Information (Defendant II) Regarding Violations of Law and Human Rights Related to Health (Covid 19) Applications & Passports
Today a group of 13 people affiliated with MPR (People’s Suffering Assembly) together with a team of lawyers SUTA WIDHYA SH DAN REKAN have filed a lawsuit in the Administrative Court of Jakarta against the Minister of Health and the Minister of Communication and Information who are jointly responsible for the “health”/Covid19 smartphone application, especially PeduliLindung and e-HAC. The lawsuit has been registered with case number 140/G/TF/2022/PTUN.JKT at the Jakarta Administrative Court (http://sipp.ptun-jakarta.go.id/)
The purpose of this lawsuit is to terminate the mandatory use of any “health” app, delete all available apps and data, prevent future medical “tyranny” via digital ID and force the government to prove some key elements of the Covid 19 “pandemic”, for example that PCR & antigen test can detect “Covid 19 infection”.
Prior to filing this lawsuit, the Plaintiffs have submitted an administrative objection letter to the Defendants, the full letter and explanation are in the previous Press Release and its reading is recommended for a deeper understanding of this lawsuit:
Translated Press Release (Google Translate): Link
Here are some excerpts and explanations from the lawsuit filed today, all complete documents will be published later after the trial and evidence process has started.
“ Lawless Action Lawsuit (Onrechtmatige Overheidsdaad)”
Object of the Lawsuit:
Government action by ACCUSED I together with ACCUSED II in the form of Obligation to Use Health Applications, or Other Electronic/Non-Electronic Devices, which are based on Medical Information and other Personal Data.
Petitum (Plaintiffs’ Demands):
- Declaring that the government actions of ACCUSED I and ACCUSED II are null and void in the form of requiring and facilitating the use of Health Applications or Other Electronic/Non-Electronic Devices, which are based on Medical Information and other Personal Data;
- Require ACCUSED I and ACCUSED II to take Government Actions, namely to stop all actions that require and facilitate the use of the Covid-19 application or other Electronic/Non-Electronic Devices, which are based on Medical Information and other Personal Data;
- Require ACCUSED I and ACCUSED II to take Government Actions, namely disabling all Covid-19 applications and deleting all related data;
- Require ACCUSED I and ACCUSED II to pay compensation of 1 million per day per Plaintiff starting from May 10 (10 working days after the objection letter) and 10 million per day per Plaintiff after the decision on this lawsuit (is granted) as long as the verdict is not 100% implemented;
- Sentencing ACCUSED I and ACCUSED II to pay the costs incurred in this case;
Laws violated by the Defendants (among others):
1. Whereas the Plaintiffs have rights guaranteed in the 1945 Constitution, among others:
Article 28A paragraph (1), which states:
” Everyone has the right to live and has the right to defend his life.”
Article 28D paragraph (1), which states:
” Everyone has the right to recognition, guarantee, protection and fair legal certainty and equal treatment before the law.”
Article 28G paragraph (1) , which states:
” Everyone has the right to personal protection, family , honor, dignity, and property under his control, and has the right to a sense of security and protection from the threat of fear to do or not do something which is a human right “
2. Whereas the aforementioned constitutional rights are further regulated in Law 39/1999, among others:
Article 9 , which states:
” Everyone has the right to live, maintain his life and improve his standard of living”
Everyone has the right to be peaceful, safe, peaceful, happy, physically and mentally prosperous.
Article 27, which states:
Every Indonesian citizen has the right to freely move and reside within the territory of the Republic of Indonesia
3. Whereas the Plaintiffs have the right to the protection of personal and medical data/information, such as vaccination status, Covid-19 test results which are guaranteed, among others, by :
Article 28G paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution :
“Everyone has the right to protection of himself, his family, honor, dignity and property under his control, and has the right to a sense of security and protection from the threat of fear to do or not do something which is a human right.
Article 26 paragraph (1) of Law 19/2016 :
Unless otherwise stipulated by laws and regulations, the use of any information through electronic media concerning a person’s personal data must be carried out with the consent of the person concerned . (Mandating/coercion can never be considered as “people consent”)
Elucidation of Article 26 paragraph (1) of Law 19/2016 :
In the use of Information Technology, the protection of personal data is one part of personal rights (privacy rights) . Personal rights have the following meanings:
- The right to privacy is the right to enjoy a private life and be free from all kinds of interference .
- Privacy rights are the rights to be able to communicate with other people without spying .
- Privacy rights are rights to monitor access to information about a person’s personal life and data .
The definition of personal data is contained in Article 1 number 29 of PP PSTE Number 71 of 2019 :
Personal Data is any data about a person either identified and/or can be identified separately or in combination with other information either directly or indirectly through Electronic and/or non-electronic Systems.
Article 84 paragraph (1) of Law 24/2013 , includes:
- information about physical and/or mental disabilities;
- signature; and
- other data elements that are someone’s disgrace.
Article 57 paragraph (1) of Law 36/2009 on Health:
“Everyone has the right to the confidentiality of his personal health condition that has been disclosed to the health service provider.”
That ACCUSED I in this lawsuit is the MINISTER of HEALTH of the REPUBLIC of INDONESIA who took factual action by directly mandating the use of the Health Application with various regulations, for example HK.02.01/MENKES/847/2021, HK.02.02/I/3933/2021. Defendant I through his agency the Ministry of Health is also the main “owner” of various Covid-19 applications, for example PeduliLindung and e-HAC which means Defendant I controls and owns all personal and health data from users of the Health Application and becomes a facilitator that allows other parties to require use of the application. The only legal basis that can justify restrictions and obligations such as mandatory use of health applications is Law no. 6 of 2018 concerning Health Quarantine, where the Minister of Health as ACCUSED I is the official who is responsible for handling all health quarantine actions.
That ACCUSED II in this lawsuit is the MINISTER OF COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA who facilitated the factual action mandating the use of the Health Application with various rules, for example the Decree of the Minister of Communication and Information Number 171 of 2020 concerning Determination of PeduliLindungi Applications in the Context of Implementing Health Surveillance for Handling Corona Virus Disease 2019 (Covid-19). Defendant II through his agency the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology is also the creator and one of the key “owners” of various Covid-19 applications, for example PeduliLindungi, which means Defendant II has all the personal and health data of users of the Health Application and is a facilitator who allows other parties to require the use of the application. Defendant II through the same decision has given a third party PT Telekomunikasi Indonesia (Telkom) access to all personal and medical data stored in the PeduliLindung Health Application.
That ACCUSED I and ACCUSED II are both the main stakeholders in the Applications PeduliLindungi and e-HAC and both are also stakeholders in the Covid 19 Task Force which utilizes the Health Application to issue various regulations regarding the obligation to use the Health Application which is detrimental to the Plaintiffs.
That although ACCUSED II does not mandate the use of the Health Application directly, Defendant II as the creator and main owner of the Health Application, and its data, facilitates other parties, including Defendant I and third parties such as the Covid 19 Task Force, to take mandating actions.
Whereas based on this condition, the Plaintiffs in formulating this lawsuit are of the opinion that they cannot separate the legal relationship between ACCUSED I ( MINISTER OF HEALTH) and ACCUSED II (MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATICS) because of factual actions by mandating the use of Health Applications, and forcing people to provide personal and medical data, is the implementation of joint authorities that are interrelated and constitute a unitary government that has roles and responsibilities to each other. The combined actions of the defendants also allow other agencies / third parties including private companies to enforce the mandatory use of the Health Application, which without the actions of the Defendants would not be possible.
That the obligation to use health applications is an act of health quarantine according to the definition in Article 1 of Law 6/2018: “Health Quarantine is an effort to prevent the exit or entry of disease / or public health risk factors that have the potential to cause a public health emergency.”
In accordance with Article 2 of Law 6/2018 “Health Quarantine is carried out on the basis of:
- public interest;
- legal awareness; and
- state sovereignty.
The fact that the mandatory use of health applications does not prevent infection and transmission (Because the Covid 19 vaccine does not prevent infection and transmission as recognized by Defendant I; Minister of Health: “Because vaccination does not make us immune, we can get infected and transmit” https://www .republika.co.id/berita/qyod91428/menkes-vaccination-tak-buat-immune-covid19 ), points b., c., d., e. and f. not fulfilled, even violates point d. and e. seriously because it is unfair and discriminatory without any basis against people who are unable/willing to use health applications.
That the factual actions of ACCUSED I and ACCUSED II which require the use of Health Applications are in direct conflict with Article 5 paragraph (3) of Law 36/2009 which states firmly that ” Everyone has the right to independently and responsibly determine the health services needed for themselves ” , Article 27 of Law 39/1999 , which states firmly that: “Every Indonesian citizen has the right to freely move, move, and reside within the territory of the Republic of Indonesia.” and Article 57 paragraph (1) of Law 36/2009 which states firmly that: “Everyone has the right to the confidentiality of his personal health condition that has been disclosed to the health service provider.”
The obligation to use Health Applications based on vaccination status as a whole does not contribute anything to stopping / reducing Covid 19 because the Covid 19 vaccine does not prevent infection and transmission. This fact also makes the vaccination status of protected health information of no interest to others, so the government and other parties have no right to know this information.
Minister of Health: “Because vaccination doesn’t make us immune, we can get infected and transmit” https://www.republika.co.id/berita/qyod91428/menkes-vaccination-tak-buat-kebal-covid19
These facts are known since at least January 2021:
January 2021: “So the vaccine prevents us from getting sick, not preventing us from becoming infected,” said Nadia who is also the Director of Prevention and Control of Directly Infectious Diseases (Directorate General of P2P) of the Ministry of Health, Friday (29/1).” https://www.republika.co.id/berita/qnorqe328/vaccination-not-to-mengah-penularan-covid19
The Covid19 vaccine does not prevent infection and transmission . In fact, a lot of data shows that the vaccinated seem to be more easily infected and more infectious, the vaccinated people are more infectious to each other. Since the effectiveness of the vaccine is negative for infection and transmission, it can be concluded that vaccinated people are more likely to transmit the virus than unvaccinated people. This means from an epidemiological perspective, the vaccinated person is a BIGGER source of transmission than the unvaccinated, meaning that the vaccinated person is a greater threat to public health than the unvaccinated. This means that the obligation to use Health Applications based on vaccination status worsens the transmission of Covid 19 because it creates a high concentration of people who have a high potential to transmit Covid 19 in public spaces or facilities.
The failure of the Health App’s mandatory use policy/actions is clear from the fact that a large outbreak “wave” of Delta and Omicron occurred .
According to the statement from the Spokesperson for the Ministry of Health, Siti Nadia Tarmizi, on the official website of the Indonesian Ministry of Health Friday (15/4/2022): ” Peduli Protect has prevented 3,733,067 people with red status or incomplete vaccinations from entering public spaces “. This is a clear and baseless mass discrimination, because prohibiting all these people from entering public spaces does not contribute at all to preventing the transmission of Covid 19, because the Covid 19 vaccine does not prevent transmission. (https://www.kompas.com/wiken/read/2022/04/16/040300181/as-tuding-application-pedulilindungi-melanggar-ham-ini-respons-kemenkes?page=all )
Many citizens, especially the poor, do not have a mobile phone that can be used for the Covid19 application, or do not have a mobile phone at all, or choose not to have a mobile phone that can be used for the Covid19 application for various reasons including privacy protection. The obligation to use the Covid19 application to access public spaces is clearly discrimination against those persons.
The government itself has admitted to joining the “Agenda 2030” and “Great Reset” run by the UN, WEF (World Economic Forum) and WHO with the aim of implementing world governments, limiting / eliminating national sovereignty and many restrictions and obligations for the community, for example regular experimental vaccinations and total control of society through digital money. Digital ID or digital identity is one of the core requirements to implement the agenda and unelected and irresponsible entities such as the UN, WHO and WEF openly admit to abusing Covid 19 to implement this digital identification through Health Applications.
BPK: Indonesia Enters Great Reset for 2030 Agenda https://www.tribunnews.com/bisnis/2021/06/23/bpk-indonesia-dalam-great-reset-untuk-agenda-2030
Wikipedia: Great Reset https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Reset
World Economic Forum and UN Sign Strategic Partnership Framework https://www.weforum.org/press/2019/06/world-economic-forum-and-un-sign-strategic-partnership-framework/
How digital identity can improve lives in a post-COVID-19 world https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/01/davos-agenda-digital-identity-frameworks/
That the factual act of mandatory use of Health Applications has no basis or connection with health at all, especially because it is based on vaccination status, is clearly the first step to implementing an agenda in Indonesia engineered by global institutions that are not elected by anyone and have no accountability. The defendants through their actions violate the sovereignty of the state and any reduction or loss of state sovereignty is a great loss for future generations.
The government has no right to grant national sovereignty to foreign entities, or to carry out foreign entities’ agendas that reduce/limit national sovereignty, through their actions. The constitution specifically protects future generations from such abuse of power: Article 1 paragraph 2 of the 1945 Constitution “Sovereignty rests with the people, and is implemented according to the Constitution.”
The factual actions of ACCUSED I and ACCUSED II which directly forced the people to vaccinate against Covid 19 with the obligation to use Health Applications based on vaccination status, as a means of coercion, turned out to be against the interests of humans and the ecosystem, because vaccines have unknown long-term effects, have never been tested and based on thousands of scientific studies are suspected to be dangerous, there is even a possibility for genomic alteration of the recipient which has been indicated in research and journals but in clinical trials of vaccine genomic toxicity has never been tested.
Whereas based on this condition, the Plaintiffs formulated several facts of inaccuracy in ACCUSED I and ACCUSED II in determining the mandatory use of the Health Application, as follows:
- There has never been a study or analysis on the mandatory use of the Health Application, such as a risk vs benefit analysis, by the Defendants.
- Prevention of infection and transmission has never been tested in the Covid 19 Vaccine clinical trial, and at least Defendant I knew from the start that the Covid 19 Vaccine did not prevent transmission, meaning that the use of Health Applications based on vaccination status was unlikely to prevent transmission or protect anyone.
- This fact makes it clear that the mandatory use of Health Apps based on vaccination status is not based on scientific data, has no health purpose, cannot contribute to reducing transmission rates, will not protect anyone from Covid 19 infection and makes no sense in general, but even so the The defendant has mandated it.
- The WHO’s official guidelines explain that in the context of a “vaccine passport” natural immunity resulting from natural infection with Covid 19 is the same as vaccination. More than 150 peer reviewed scientific studies are available which prove that natural immunity is much stronger and lasts much longer than vaccination. There is not a single serious scientific study worldwide showing that natural immunity is less effective than vaccination. The US CDC has even published scientific studies based on data from the entire US population during the Delta wave which prove that natural immunity is several times stronger/effective than vaccination. In other countries, for example in the European Union, natural immunity is recognized the same as vaccination to get green status in the EU Covid 19 passport. Despite all these facts, the Defendents are refusing to recognize natural immunity for “green” status in the health applications.
- There is no basis for requiring the use of the Health App as there is no emergency. Covid 19 is only dangerous for a small number of vulnerable people with certain severe diseases / comorbidities who can be protected in other ways which do not have a serious impact on the whole community.
- There is no basis for requiring the use of the Health App because people who are not sick, called “OTG”, are not a significant source of transmission. The main source of transmission are sick/symptomatic people who can be identified by means such as temperature testing. Use of the Health App will prevent unvaccinated people and those who have tested “positive” from accessing public spaces, both of which have no correlation with spread, but it does not prevent people who are truly sick and infectious from entering those spaces.
- There is no basis for requiring the use of the Health App as there is no emergency. All the data on “cases”, “hospitalizations” and “deaths” which are the basis for declaring an emergency status are mostly incorrect because they are based on test methods that are not able to detect viral infections and methods of recording “deaths” where there is no cause and effect between Covid 19 and the cause of death, plus the wrong treatment and medication that caused the patient’s death.
- There is no basis for requiring the use of the Health App as there is no emergency. Defendant I and the government in general have adopted WHO statements and recommendations without having conducted (sufficient) investigations or studies of their own on Covid 19. WHO cannot be trusted for various reasons, for example the scam of proven false “pandemic” previously “Swine flu” and “bird flu” engineered for the benefit of the pharmaceutical industry (Vaccine, Tamiflu), the high proportion of funding from the pharmaceutical industry to influence WHO policies and recommendations and the fact that they are not eelected, are not accountable to anyone and have no independent oversight. WHO’s largest financier is Bill Gates who has enormous financial interests in the pharmaceutical and large technology industries.
Press Contact: Ted Hilbert
Tel & WhatsApp: 0812 94055 112
- SUTA WIDDYA, SH
- SAHID, SH
- ALEX A. PUTRA, SH
- DEASY ANNA VICTORINA, SH
- Dr. SANIDJAR PEBRIHARIATI, R, SH, MH
Legal Consultants at the LAW OFFICE SUTA WIDHYA SH AND REKAN , having their address at JL. CIDENG BARAT IN 4A, JAKARTA PUSAT