---

JAKARTA, PUBLIC RELATIONS OF THE COURT - Petition for judicial review of the Explanation of Article 111 and Article 144 Law Number 35 Year 2009 regarding Narcotics (Law of Narcotics) is rejected by the Court. The case which is integrated to case Number 86/PUU-XVIII/2020 was filed by Ardian Aldiano, a defendant charged for planting 27 cannabis using hydroponic method with the purpose of self-consumption by burning it like cigarette to soothe the tremors he suffers. In the beginning, the petitioner is not addicted to the plant, he only used because of his condition, but finally he became an addict. Petitioner claimed that he is willing to recover from his addiction proven by the copy of Medical Records from Yayasan Garuda Gandung Satria (an institution for narcotics rehabilitation).

Petitioner felt that he had been violated constitutionally by the practice of articles he filed in his petition especially regarding the rights to have approval, guarantee, protection, and law certainty, due to there is no clear definition of the word “tree” in the Explanation of Article 111 and Article 114 Narcotics Law (UU Narkotika). According to him, there is a refraction or uncertainty in the meaning of the word “tree” in the said law making the articles unclear and not firm which is worsening the image of rule of law about narcotics in Indonesia.

Groundless

In the legal considerations explained by Justice Suhartoyo, the Court stated, the use of the word “tree” in the bill of Article 111 Paragraph (2) and Article 114 Paragraph (2) Law of Narcotics is mostly emphasize the description and perception of a plant with roots, trunk, leaves, flowers, seeds, as well as fruits which is normally used in daily conversation. The reason is because people in the society mainly use the word “tree” instead of the word “shrub” in classifying a plant which physically has roots, trunk, leaves, flowers, seeds, as well as fruits even if those said plants do not qualify to be a tree based on the heights as defined by botanists.

According to Justice Suhartoyo, plants that belong to the First Class of Narcotics are Papaver Somniferum L, Coca, and Cannabis--plants which physically have roots, trunks, leaves, flowers, and seeds. Meanwhile, the height of those plants are around 1 (one) meter to maximum of 6 (six) meters, for instance the weeds or known in its latin name as Cannabis Sativa. Therefore, Court decided, it is clear that there is no constitutionality issue in the word “tree” of the said law.

 

“The Arguments from the Petitioners related to the necessity of deciphering the word “tree” in the Article 111 Paragraph (2) and Article 114 Paragraph (2) the Law Narcotics as what the word “tree” defines in the Law Number 18 Year 2013 as well as being deciphered as a plant that has roots and trunk with the maximum height of 5 (five) meters is groundless based on the law,” said Suhartoyo.

Furthermore, Suhartoyo stated that a country based on law basically gives freedom and independence for the justices to rule out a case including criminal cases, and there should not be interfered by any parties in deciding the cases. The meaning of disparity in general is the application of criminal cases which differs from another similar case or to another case which the nature of danger itself can be compared without a clear justification.

Nevertheless, disparity in the perspective of the decision by the justice in ruling a criminal case is a discretion owned by the justices which cannot be separated from the formulation of the elements of the norms and penalties in the criminal offence concerned. Other than that, other fundamental factors that are considered by the justices in ruling a case are legal facts based on the results of existing evidence as well as certainty and the justices’ comprehension toward the occasion or values of fairness that occured and proven in the trial, including the assessment of things that can be either worsen or eases the defendants. These values are considered from the philosophical, sociological, and juridical perspectives.

Meanwhile, the law Number 35 Year 2009 itself has given the minimum and maximum sentence for the criminal act defendants of narcotics abuse, be it distributor, user, or addicts. In the effort to stop the distribution of narcotics, Indonesia uses the criminal law, whoever violates the said law shall have the sentence in accordance to what they have done. The purpose of this law and sentencing is to give fear appeal to the people so they do not violate the rule (deterrent effect).

Therefore, the arguments from the petitioner which stated that the use of the word “tree” in the said law has given the disparity of criminal law about narcotics is a groundless conclusion.

“Above all that, there are many determining factors that make Justice’s decision have a different strafmaat (heavy or light punishment). It is because those things are very determined by many things as stated in the legal consideration by the Court, and other fundamental things due to the different nature between one case to another. Therefore, there is difference in the severity of the punishment decided by the Justice,” explained Suhartoyo.

Writer: Utami Argawati
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari
PR: Andhini S. F.
Translator: Wafda Afina (Editor: Indah Apriyanti)

Translation uploaded on 01/16/2021 08:47 WIB

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case where any differences occur between the English and the Indonesian version, the Indonesian version will prevail.

---