The Petitioners’ counsel during the Petition Revision Hearing of Case Number 147/PUU-XXIV/2026 concerning the judicial review of Law Number 35 of 2009 on Narcotics, Monday (05/18/2026). Photo by MKRI/Bay.
JAKARTA, (MKRI) – The Constitutional Court held a follow-up hearing on the judicial review of Article 103 paragraph (1) letters a and b, along with the Elucidation of Law Number 35 of 2009 on Narcotics (Narcotics Law), on Monday (05/18/2026). The second hearing of Petition Number 147/PUU-XXIV/2026 was presided over by Chief Justice Suhartoyo, accompanied by Constitutional Justices Daneil Yusmic P. Foekh and M. Guntur Hamzah, with the agenda of examining the revised petition.
During the hearing, counsel for the Petitioners, Singgih Tomi Gumilang, stated that an additional Petitioner had been included, namely Petitioner II, who had undergone the entire judicial process—from the first instance in Denpasar to cassation at the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia on August 7, 2025—without any order for rehabilitation.
The Petitioners also revised their legal standing and added five cumulative requirements for Petitioner II, supported by decisions at four levels of adjudication that did not order rehabilitation, which were presented as evidence of specific constitutional harm.
“Furthermore, the Petitioners have removed Article 1 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia as a constitutional benchmark. Instead, they rely on Article 28 paragraph (1), Article 28H paragraph (1), and Article 28H paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution, which are considered more relevant and appropriate in assessing the constitutional harm suffered by the Petitioners,” Singgih explained.
Read also:
Rehabilitation Guidelines for Narcotics Addicts Questioned
At the Preliminary Hearing on Monday (04/04/2026), the Petitioners asserted that they were directly affected by legal uncertainty arising from the absence of explicit regulation on rehabilitation guidelines for narcotics addicts and abusers in judicial decisions, both under Law Number 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code and Law Number 1 of 2026 on Criminal Adjustments. This situation raises concerns that the a quo provision may not be applied as a guideline for judges in adjudicating cases involving narcotics addicts and/or abusers.
In the concrete case, Alpin (Petitioner I) was a defendant in proceedings before the Tanjungkarang District Court. He was sentenced to 6.5 years of imprisonment and fined Rp200,000,000. Alpin was found guilty of unlawfully possessing Category I narcotics in the form of plants. According to the Petitioner, he was not a dealer, as established during the trial, but a narcotics user.
However, in its legal considerations, the panel of judges did not consider the application of Article 103 paragraph (1) of the Narcotics Law, even though the Petitioner’s urine test results were positive, confirming his status as an active cannabis user.
According to the Petitioners, Article 103 paragraph (1) letters a and b of the Narcotics Law constitutes a fundamental provision granting judges the authority to order medical rehabilitation for narcotics addicts, whether proven guilty or not of narcotics-related offenses. This provision reflects a health-based approach to narcotics abuse, in line with human rights principles.
Based on these arguments, Alpin requests the Court to declare that Article 103 paragraph (1) letters a and b, along with its Elucidation, does not contradict the 1945 Constitution and remains legally binding, provided that it is interpreted as the sole legal basis and mandatory guideline for judges in examining and adjudicating cases involving narcotics addicts and/or abusers, notwithstanding the enactment of Law Number 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code and Law Number 1 of 2026 on Criminal Adjustments.
Author : Sri Pujianti
Editor : N. Rosi.
PR : Fauzan F.
Translator : Agusweka PS.
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 prevails.
Case Track: Number 147/PUU-XXIV/2026
Monday, May 18, 2026 | 21:06 WIB 43