The Petitioners, through legal counsel Ma’ruf Bajammal, requesting that the material judicial review hearing of Law No. 35 of 2009 on Narcotics be postponed, Thursday (11/11/2021). Photo by Humas MK/Bayu.

---

Thursday, November 11, 2021 | 10:57 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) held another material judicial review hearing of Law No. 35 of 2009 on Narcotics virtually on Thursday, November 11, 2021. Today’s hearing for case No. 106/PUU-XVIII/2020 was supposed to present the testimony of the Petitioners’ witness, but was adjourned because the witness in question was absent.

“After the Registrar’s Office reschedule that was conveyed to us a day before, we had difficulty communicating with our witness, so the witness that we’d like to present cannot attend today’s hearing,” said the Petitioners’ legal counsel Ma’ruf Bajammal.

The Petitioners requested a delay of the hearing through their legal counsels. “Because there is no more agenda, the hearing is adjourned until Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 11:00 WIB,” said Chief Justice Anwar Usman.

Also read: 

The Constitutionality of Type I Narcotics for Medicine

House Says Legalization of Cannabis for Medical Purposes Different in Each Country

The case No. 106/PUU-XVIII/2020 was filed by Dwi Pertiwi, Santi Warastuti, Nafiah Murhayanti, Perkumpulan Rumah Cemara, the Institute for Criminal Justice Reform (ICJR), and the Community Legal Aid Institute (LBHM) (Petitioners I-VI). They requested the material judicial review of the elucidation to Article 6 paragraph (1) letter a and Article 8 paragraph (1) of the Narcotics Law, which prohibits cannabis use for medical purposes. They believe this has harmed their constitutional rights as it kept the Petitioners’ children from receiving treatment that can improve their health and quality of life.

At the preliminary hearing on Wednesday, December 16, 2020, the Petitioners stated that three of them are mothers of cerebral palsy patients. Dwi Pertiwi have given her child cannabis oil in a therapy in Victoria, Australia in 2016. She couldn’t continue with the therapy in Indonesia due to threat of criminal sanctions by the a quo norm. This was also true of the other two petitioners. Meanwhile, Perkumpulan Rumah Cemara, ICJR, and LBHM are nonprofit organizations formed to give society access to healthcare.

Also read: 

Asmin Fransiska: Indonesia Misinterpreted Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961

Stephen Rolles: All Medicine Have Risks

South Korean and Thai Experts Talks Legalizing Medical Cannabis

The Petitioners argue that the elucidation to the a quo norm has led to the loss of the Petitioners’ right to health services as regulated in Article 28H paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. Such a right has been adopted in Article 4 letter a of the Narcotics Law, which states that the law serves to guarantee the availability of narcotics for the interest of health services and/or development of science and technology. Meanwhile, Article 7 regulates the sole legal use of narcotics for health services and/or development of science and technology. This means narcotics use can be legal and is inseparable from the right to health services guaranteed by the Constitution.

Article 8 paragraph (2) of the Narcotics Law allows opportunities for research on type I narcotics. However, the elucidation to Article 6 paragraph (1) letter a and Article 8 paragraph (1) of the Narcotics Law has eliminated the Petitioners’ right to enjoy the benefits of science and technology development in the form of research results on the health benefits of this type of narcotics.

Writer        : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : M. Halim
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 11/11/2021 15:13 WIB

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

---