The Constitutional Court (MK) cannot accept applications submitted by the Governing Territory NU Institute of Agriculture Development (PW LPPNU) of East Java and the farmers of Garut, West Java. Number 24/PUU-X/2012 verdict was read by Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Moh. Mahfud MD and is assisted by seven other constitutional judges on Tuesday (18/9) at the Plenary room.

"To declare the petition of the petition cannot be accepted," he said in the presence of the applicant's attorney

In the opinion of the Court was read by Judge Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi Constitution, the Court found Article 113 paragraph (1), paragraph (2), and paragraph (3) of Law 36/2009 concerning Health constitutionality been petitioned by other Applicants to the 1945 Constitution, Article 27, Article 28A and Article 28 of the 1945 Constitution and has been decided by the Court in Decision No. 19/PUU-VIII/2010, dated 1 November 2011 with the verdict, "states the petition Refused to all".

In another petition, continued Fadlil, has also filed petition for substantive several articles in Law 36/2009, including Article 113 paragraph (2), which according to the petitioners contrary to Article 27 paragraph (2), Article 28A, Section 28D ( 1) and paragraph (2), and Article 28 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. "The application has been decided by the Court in Decision No. 34/PUU-VIII/2010, dated 1 November 2011 with the verdict, among other things, 'the petitioners regarding the application of Article 113 paragraph (2) of Law No. 36 Year 2009 on Health along phrase '... tobacco, products that contain tobacco, ...' unacceptable '," he said.

In this case the request, Fadlil describes the Petitioners invoked only testing the constitutionality of Article 113 paragraph (2) of Law 36/2009 with a proposition contrary to Article 1 paragraph (3) and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. "In the petition No. 34/PUU-VIII/2010, as mentioned above, the applicant has used Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution as one of the touchstone in testing the constitutionality of their application, so that the consideration of the Court in ruling on the application mutatis mutandis Also a consideration in the decision a quo, "he explained.

Fadlil describes 1945 Constitution’s preambule as one stone of the test by the applicant in the application for No. 19/PUU-VIII/2010 is the fundamental norm that animates all the articles of the 1945 Constitution, including Article 1 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution which states, " Indonesia is a country of law ", as well as Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution which states," Everyone has the right to recognition, security, protection, and fair legal certainty and equal treatment before the law ". Although the petition is made in Article 1 paragraph (3) as a touchstone in the testing section and have never used the stone in the petition before the test, so that the Petitioner did not petition ne bis in idem for the constitutionality of the application of different reasons, but the Court is essentially the reasons Petitioner in the petition and the petition 19/PUU-VIII/2010 Number 34/PUU-VIII/2010 same reasons the Applicant in this application.

"Thus the consideration of the Court in Decision No. 19/PUU-VIII/2010 and No. 34/PUU-VIII/2010, all the chapters that have been tested, namely Article 113 of Law 36/2009 mutatis mutandis be considered also in the petition a quo and by The Petitioners therefore request must be declared ne bis in idem," he explained.

In conclusion, the Court concluded that the Court has authority to hear this petition. "The petitioners have legal status (legal standing) to apply for a quo. Petitioners' petition is ne bis in idem," he said. (Lulu Anjarsari / mh/Yazid.tr)