Legal counsel Singgih Tomi Gumilang at the ruling hearing for the judicial review of the Law on the Ratification of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, Wednesday (3/20/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) rejected the arguments by Pipit Sri Hartanti and Supardji—by parents to Shita Aske Paramitha, who has had cerebral palsy since childhood—on the judicial review of Law No. 8 of 1976 on the Ratification of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 and the Protocol that Amends It. The ruling hearing took place on Wednesday, March 20, 2024 in the plenary courtroom.

Delivering the Court’s legal considerations for case No. 13/PUU-XXII/2024, Constitutional Justice M. Guntur Hamzah said Class I narcotics can only be used for developing science, not for therapy, since it highly likely to cause addiction, as the Court had stressed in Decision No. 106/PUU-XVIII/2020, where the Court asserted that there had not been any comprehensive and in-depth scientific study and research (after said case) for the use of cannabis in health services.

Therefore, it was important for the Court to reaffirm that the Government immediately should conduct a special study on the use of cannabis for medical purposes in Indonesia so that this issue can be immediately resolved and answered rationally and scientifically. Given the increasing public aspirations on the need for the use of cannabis for health and humanitarian reasons.

The Court upholds its previous stance that studies regarding the use of marijuana for medical purposes in Indonesia should be carried out immediately so that they can become a reference for the legislatures.

“Thus, the Petitioners’ arguments regarding Article 1 point 2 of the Narcotics Law have no basis in law. Based on the entire elaboration of the legal considerations above, Article 1 point 2 of Law No. 8 of 1976 and its elucidation have been found not to violate the right to receive ease and special treatment to obtain equal opportunities and benefits in order to achieve equality and justice as guaranteed in Article 28H paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution, not as argued by the Petitioners. Thus, the Petitioners’ arguments are unreasonable according to law in their entirety,” Justice Guntur concluded.

Also read:

Medical Cannabis’ Use Questioned Again

Petitioners of Narcotics Law Add List of Asian Countries Legalizing Medical Cannabis

The Petitioners believed that Article 1 paragraph (2) of the Narcotics Law are in violation of Article 28H paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. They asserted that they had made a lot of efforts for their children’s recovery. A lot of research trials found that oil extracted from cannabis with cannabidiol and THC content is effective in treating children suffering from complex motor disorders. In short, the use of medical cannabis can reduce the impact of dystonia and seizures as well as improve motor function and quality of life.

However, Indonesia classifies marijuana and its derivatives as Class I narcotics or dangerous substances in Law No. 35 of 2009 on Narcotics. In their petition, the Petitioners argued that the classification of narcotic substances is the right of every state as long as it is done with good intentions for the development of health services and the State can control substances by ensuring distribution licenses in accordance with their designation. The State has full authority over changes to the class or its determination by reviewing the objectives of the Convention and laws therein, including in Indonesia. The classification of these substances should not subjugate to politics and geopolitics at the time the 1961 Single Convention was formed, but should be seen as an urgent need for health services in Indonesia today. This is in order to ensure the fulfillment of the needs of drugs that fall into Class I as well as the State’s independence for better health services.

The Petitioners requested that the Court declare the material content of Article 1 paragraph (2) along with its elucidation and of paragraphs 7 and 8 of Law No. 8 of 1976 on the Ratification of the Single Convention on Narcotics, 1961 and the Protocol that Amends It along the phrase ‘The Protocol amending the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961' unconstitutional and not legally binding as long as it is not interpreted as ‘The Protocol amending the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs up to protocol of the 63rd session including the Commission on Narcotic Drugs’ 63 session in Vienna, March 2-6, 2020, which uses document E/CN.7/2020/CRP.9.

Author       : Sri Pujianti
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Fauzan Febriyan
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

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.

---