---

Manufacturers and importers of cigarettes must include a clear warning in the form of writings and drawings on the packaging. Therefore, this is a manifestation of the guarantee and protection of everyone’s right to obtain information as the provisions of Section 28F of the Act of 1945. Declared by the Constitutional Court ruling related to the testing 34/PUU-VIII/2010 number of Act 36/2009 on Health, which was read on Tuesday (1 / 11) evening, at the Plenary Court. In this case, the Court partially granted the petition. 

"Whereas with the mandatory health warning signs include a picture or any other form, will further ensure the fulfillment of the constitutional rights of citizens of Indonesia, especially the consumers and / or potential consumers of cigarettes to obtain information about the dangers of smoking, as consumers and / or potential consumers, addition consists of people who have literacy, also composed of those who do not or do not have the ability to read and write, "wrote the Court in its legal considerations. 

In fact, continued the Court, for those who have certain physical disabilities such as blindness requires a health warning information so that warnings can also be added in the "other forms", for example by using Braille, as stated in Article 114 Explanation of the Health Act. 

Court’s opinion, there are norms that the interpretation potentially prejudicing the rights of citizens at the Health Law and Article 114 which states that the explanation is meant by "health warning" is "writing a clear and easily legible and can be accompanied by a picture or any other form". 

That’s because, the Court continued, in Article 199 paragraph (1) of Law 36/2009 states that, "Any person who knowingly manufactures or put cigarettes into the territory of the Republic of Indonesia with a health warning does not include the form of images referred to in Article 114 sentenced to imprisonment ...". That the word "may" in the Explanation of Article 114 of Health Act is the inclusion of meaningful alternative health warnings in the form of writing that is clear and easily legible may be accompanied or not accompanied by pictures or other forms, while Article 199 paragraph (1) of Act 36/2009 can interpreted imperative that health warnings should be included in addition to writing is also the form of images. 

In fact, continued the Court, the position description of the article is to explain the legal norms contained in the article, so with the explanation of the intent and purpose of the rule of law to be clear and bright and not be interpreted other than what is meant by the former law. 

"If there are legal norms which contains provisions that sanction norms refer to the Explanation section of the Act, then the norms of criminal law is clearly contrary to the principle of legality because the set of criminal sanctions to those who violate the Explanation section, because the explanation article was not the norm," said the Court. 

Court judge, the provisions of Article 114 of Law of Health in particular on the word "shall" can still lead to different interpretations when referring to the Elucidation of Article 114 of Law of Health in particular the phrase "and can". Therefore, in the ruling decision, the Court stated that the word "may" in the Explanation of Article 114 and the phrase "form images" in Article 199 paragraph (1) Health Act is contrary to the constitution. 

Meanwhile, the Court stated ne bis in idem to test the Health Act Section 113 which is also filed by the Applicant. "It has been decided in the Court’s Decision Number 19/PUU-VIII/2010, November 1, 2011 with the ruling, ‘Declare to entirely reject the Petitioners’", said the Court. "In essence, the reasons for Petitioners in No. 19/PUU-VIII/2010 same petition with the reasons for the Petitioners in the petition a quo as far as Article 113 paragraph (1)." 

As to the other arguments, the court said it was not proven. "Rejecting the petition of the Petitioner in addition to and beyond," said Chairman of the Constitutional Court, Moh. Mahfud MD reading a verdict. 

Petitioner in this case amounted to 16 people consisting of the heads of tobacco farmers association, the director of the tobacco companies and tobacco farmers.Among them came from Central Java and East Java. They, among others, Chairman of the Indonesian Tobacco Farmers Association (APTI), DPD Central Java Nurtanto Brata Vishnu; Chairman of Indonesian Tobacco Farmers Association (APTI), East Java DPD Amin Subarkah; Secretary Tobacco Farmers Association (APTI), East Java DPD Abdul Hafidz Aziz et al . (Dodi / mh/Yazid.tr)

---