Petition for judicial review of constitutionality of Article 114 and Article 199 paragraph (1) of Act 36/2009 on Health of Article 27 paragraph (2), Article 28D paragraph (1), Article 28G Paragraph (1), Article 28F, Article 28I paragraph (2) of 1945, has been decided by the Court (ne bis in idem) in decision No. 34/PUU-VIII/2010, November 1, 2011. The opinion thus pronounced the verdict in the trial Court case Number 55/PUU-IX/2011, Tuesday (17/01/2011) in Room Plenary Session of the Constitutional Court Building.
 
Court in the ruling states do not accept the petition filed by the Society of Entrepreneurs Forum Clove Cigarettes, Zaenal Musthofa, and Erna Setyo Ningrum. "Passing, stating the Petitioners’ petition is unacceptable," said Chief Justice of the Plenary Session of the Constitutional Court, Moh. Mahfud MD.

Health Law Article 114 states: "Any person who manufactures or cigarettes to enter Indonesian territory must include health warnings". Then Article 199 paragraph (1) states: "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
Court Decision Number 34/PUU-VIII/2010 dated 1 114 shall be punished imprisonment of 5 (five) years and a fine of of Rp. 500,000,000.00 (five hundred million rupiah) "
November 2011, inter alia, on judicial review of Article 114, Explanation of Article 114 and Article 199 paragraph (1) of Act 36/2009. In the Court’s decision stating the word "may" in the Explanation of Article 114 and the phrase "form images" in Article 199 paragraph (1) contrary to the 1945 Constitution.

In addition, in decision No. 34/PUU-VIII/2010, the Court states refused testing of Article 114, Explanation of Article 114 except the word "may" and Article 199 paragraph (1) unless the phrase "the form of images". According to the Court, Article 114 of Act 36/2009 and the explanation must be interpreted that to include a clear warning in the form of text and images is an obligation for manufacturers and importer cigarettes. It thereby related to the guarantee and protection of everyone’s right to obtain information as guaranteed by Article 28F of the 1945 Constitution. Thus, the decision of the Court’s opinion Article 114, Explanation of Article 114 except the word "may" and Article 199 paragraph (1) of Act 36/2009 unless the "shape image" is constitutional.

Although the Petitioners case Number 55/PUU-IX/2011 is carrying a stone in a slightly different test, namely Article 28G Paragraph (1) and Article 28F of the 1945 Constitution, but according to the Court, the substance of Article 114 and Article 199 paragraph (1) of Act 36 / 2009 has been assessed and considered in the decision of the Court Number 34/PUUVIII/2010. So the verdict 34/PUUVIII/2010 mutatis mutandis apply for consideration in this 55/PUU-IX/2011 decision. Based on these considerations, the Court argued, the petition filed by Association of Entrepreneurs Forum Clove Cigarettes et al, is ne bis in idem. (Rosihin Nur Ana / mh/Yazid.tr)