"Smoking is not an inherent right that is natural," as asserted by the expert dr. Widyastuti Suroyo, presented by the Related Parties in the case 57/PUU-IX/2011, Tuesday (20/12) at the Plenary Court courtroom. According to him, a person’s right to smoke, similar to the product use rights. However, the characteristics and information received by smokers or potential smokers of tobacco products is usually inadequate.

He emphasized that there are at least 7000 chemicals, of which 70 of them are carcinogens. Even worse, he continued, cigarettes are addictive.

Not only that, according to him, Based on the results of research, the concentration of harmful substances contained in cigarette smoke when released into the air is greater than the concentration at which there is smoke in cigarettes. "Secondhand smoke is more dangerous environment. Concentration is three times greater than the danger of a major cigarette smoke, "he said.

In addition, continued Widyastuti, a special smoking room in the building or buildings does not effectively reduce the risk of exposure to cigarette smoke. "Cigarette smoke will be more likely to smear into the surrounding space."

In fact, in this case, ventilation can be said of no use. "Ventilation is only for convenience, not for medical purposes," he said. This opinion is based on research done by experts in their field.

Finally, Widyastuti concluded, "The provision of smoking rooms inside the building cannot control the seepage of toxic smoke into the other room," he concluded. "Regions without a cigarette for the smoking ban are not as far as not harming the rights of nonsmoker’s healthy environment that is protected by the Constitution of 1945."

Meanwhile, Yusril Ihza Mahendra, an expert from the Petitioner, the issue highlights the test of Act No. 36 of 2009 on Health from the normative side. According to him, the problem of testing on Article 115 paragraph (1) Health Act proposed by the applicant can be either material or formal. "Because, what is the explanation section reviewed, not the norm in the article," he explained.

He also stated, the provisions of which were tested by the Applicant raises legal uncertainty. "Clear and void because it contains its own norms," he said.

In addition to these experts, on the same occasion, Plenary Session of the Constitutional Court, chaired by Deputy Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Achmad Sodiki also had to listen to the testimony of a witness presented by the Related Parties, namely Sukaesih. According to Sukaesih, so far Government has yet to provide protection to the public from the dangers of secondhand smoke. (Dodi / mh/Yazid.tr)