Hery Chariansyah as attorney of the Petitioners in the judicial review hearing of the Broadcasting Law on Thursday (14/12) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The Constitutional Court rejected entirely the judicial review of Article 46 paragraph (3) letter c of the Broadcasting Law and Article 13 letter c of the Press Law on Thursday (14/12). The principal issue of the Case No. 81/PUU-XV/2017 was considered unreasonable by law. "Rejects the Petitioners\' petition entirely," said Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Arief Hidayat, in the presence of the eight other judges.

The Petitioners—Pemuda Muhammadiyah, Ikatan Pelajar Muhammadiyah, Nasyi’atul Aisyiyah, and the Indonesian Social Empowerment Foundation—challenged Article 46 paragraph (3) letter c of the Broadcasting Law and Article 13 letter c of the Press Law. They argued that cigarette advertisements can encourage consumers to smoke, while cigarette contains harmful substances. The Petitioners request a ban on cigarette advertising even though cigarettes are legal goods.

In the legal considerations read by Constitutional Justice Maria Farida Indrati, the Court is of the opinion that if what was intended and desired by the Petitioners is prohibition against the advertising of cigarettes that displays cigarettes and the prohibition of displaying cigarettes and/or their use in advertisement as requested in the petitum of the petition, Article 46 paragraph (3) letter c of the Broadcasting Law and Article 13 letter c of the Press Law actually accommodate the substance petitioned by the Petitioners. Similarly, the provision of Article 13 of the Press Law also contains prohibition for advertising companies to advertise the substance desired by the Petitioners, one of which is the prohibition of advertising cigarettes by displaying them.

Therefore, the Petitioners have mistakenly comprehended 46 paragraph (3) letter c of the Broadcasting Law and Article 13 letter c of the Press Law by only understanding the norm partially or not reading it completely. In fact, the formulation of the norm is an integral part of the main clause in the same article. Justice Maria explained the two articles, when fully comprehended, state that advertisements that display cigarettes and/or their use are prohibited under the Broadcasting Law and the Press Law.

Justice Maria continued that if the norm in the articles challenged by the Petitioners is granted by stating 46 paragraph (3) letter c of the Broadcasting Law and Article 13 letter c of the Press Law contradictory to the 1945 Constitution and having no binding legal force, what would happen is that advertisements and advertising of cigarettes that display cigarettes would no longer be prohibited. If they were not prohibited, she added, the threat of violation of the citizens\' constitutional rights argued by the Petitioners would happen.

"Considering that based on all the above legal considerations, the formulation of the a quo law is not contradictory to the 1945 Constitution as argued by the Petitioners, the petition of the Petitioners that Article 46 paragraph (3) letter c of the Broadcasting Law and Article 13 letter c of the Press Law be declared contradictory to the 1945 Constitution is unreasonable according to law," she said. (ARS/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)