Warning of the dangers of cigarettes in the Health Act are reviewed in the Constitutional Court (MK), entered the stage of the pronunciation of the verdict. Court in the ruling that was read on Tuesday (02/11/2011) night, stating the application is not acceptable. 

The trial decision to the pronunciation of the case was filed by Dr. 43/PUU-IX/2011.Widyastuti Soerojo, M.Sc., Dr. Muherman Aaron and Public Health Student Association Senate Indonesia (ISMKMI). Widyastuti and Muherman each profession is a doctor who has an obligation to create, maintain, and improve community health status as mandated by Article 9 and Article 12 of Law 36/2009. While ISMKMI, in the Articles of Association and stairs are committed to defending the public interest in this health field. 

Court’s opinion, Article 114 of Act 36/2009 on Health tested the Petitioners, the Court has decided in Decision Number 34/PUU-VIII/2010, moments before the verdict was read 43/PUU-VIII/2010 Number. Meanwhile, according to Article 60 of the Constitutional Court Act, Article 42 of the Constitutional Court No. 06/PMK/2005 on Guidelines for examining the Case Review states, the material content of the paragraphs, chapters, and / or sections in the Act that have been tested, unless another or different reasons, not can be petitioned again. 

In essence, according to the Court, the petition and the reasons for the request 34/PUU-VIII/2010 number is equal to the petition filed No 43/PUU-VIII/2010 by Widyastuti, Muherman and ISMKMI, where in the states, among other considerations, that the word "may" in the Explanation of Article 114 of Law 36/2009 which is connected with the sense of "must include health warnings", contains two different senses at once which is cumulative and alternative. In fact, the explanation of a passage is required precisely to describe the formulation of a firm in order to interpret the word "must include the health warning" in the provisions of Article 114 has become more clear and explicit, so it does not lead to other interpretations. 

Therefore, the Court consideration in Decision No. 34/PUU-VIII/2010, throughout the article that has been tested with the same test stone mutatis mutandis also be a consideration in the decision of this case. Furthermore, based on these considerations, test the constitutionality of article pleaded Widyastuti Soerojo, Muherman Aaron and ISMKMI declared ne bis in idem. (Rosihin Nur Ana / mh/Yazid.tr)