14

is absolute, and non-negotiable is its existence. Thus,

a law must meet the principle of legal certainty;

(12) That the ambiguity of the formulation of Article 113 of the paragraph (2) and

the disharmony between Article 113 of the paragraph (1) and the paragraph (2), then

automatically the provisions of Article 113 paragraph (3) and Section 116 Act 36/2009 do not

have a binding force;

(13) That fair legal certainty is part of the Rights

Man. As such, the Act is required to be vexed

at fair legal certainty so that in the establishment of regulations

laws are good, the material must meet the principle

fair legal certainty. That the vagueness of the formula 113

paragraph (2) and the disharmony between Article 113 of the paragraph (1) and the paragraph (2)

that indicate the vagueness of the purpose in the formulation of the Article norm

113 verses (1) and verse (2), are evidence that the norm that

is contained in the formula 113 paragraph (1), paragraph (2), and paragraph (3) and

Section 116 potentially raises legal uncertainty, and

violates the legal certainty as mandated in the Constitution

Article 28D verse (1) UUD 1945;

(14) That as the dalil-dalil is delivered by the applicant and

has been described above, then clearly the formulation of the norm in Article 113

paragraph (1), paragraph (2), and paragraph (3), as well as Section 116 is the formulation of the norm

in conflict with the constitution;

(15) That Article 113 of the paragraph (1), paragraph (2), and paragraph (3), as well as Section 116 is

a norm that cannot be separated. Article 113 of the verse (1), verse (2), and verse

(3) is the parent norm that regulates the "Substance of the Substance

Adjective". While Section 116 is the Order to govern more

further Section 113 paragraph (1), paragraph (2), and paragraph (3) in Regulation

The Government;

(16) That Section 116 Act 36/2009 authorizes

government to establish government regulations on

the safeguards of materials that contain addictive substances. As a step

review or order from Section 116, the Government has prepared

Government Regulation Design (RPP) on the Securing Of Materials

Containing The Addictive Substance ' s Of Tobacco Products

15

Health. In the event of a review of the existence of Article 113 (2) which

does not meet the clear formula qualifications and is associated with

the existence of the RPP, further provides evidence of obscurity

the formulation of Article 113 of the paragraph (2). As the formulation in the RPP

is, where no chapter or one paragraph

describes or explains about the phrase "solid, liquid, and gas".

It also shows that the government is making RPP.

confusion does the interpretation of the phrase "solid, fluid and

gas" as having been formulated in Article 113 of the paragraph (2) Act 36/2009

that;

(17) That the uncertainty of legal arrangements about tobacco in the section

a quo potentially poses an aberration against the constitution. Section

116 potentially gives rise to the arbitrariness

the government, for the error arising from the enactment of Article 113

paragraph (1), paragraph (2), and paragraph (3) Act 36/2009;

(18) As the implementation of the provisions Article 116 of the Act 36/2009, was born

(RPP) on Securing Materials Containing Addictive Substances

Tobacco Products For Health. Title rPP (recht

title) "Government Rules Design on Material Security

Which contains addictive substances in the form of tobacco products

Health", in which the material is contained within the RPP

specifically set tobacco products with cigarettes that contain substances

addictive. Whereas materials and other products containing substances

addictive are not regulated in the RPP; (Vide Evidence P-7)

(19) That the RPP issued the Government, as a result of

the ambiguity of the formulation of Article 113 of the paragraph (1), paragraph (2) and paragraph (3) Act

36/2009. The vagueness of the addictive arrangement in Article 113 of the paragraph (1),

paragraph (2), and paragraph (3) leads to a legal loophole for

interpreting the section;

(20) Article 113 of the paragraph (2), mentions, " addictive substances as intended

on the paragraph (i) includes tobacco, tobacco-containing products,

solid, fluid, and addictive gases that use it

raises a loss for itself and/or society Around. "

(21) When aware of the provisions of Article 113 of the paragraph (2) and Linked

16

with RPP material issued by the Government, clearly and

real government does not provide an interpretation of the phrase "solid,

liquid and gas". Whereas the provisions of Section 116 Act 36/2009,

mandates to the Government to issue regulations

governments on the safeguarding of materials containing addictive substances;

(22) It indicates that the provisions of Article 113 paragraph (1), verse (2) and

paragraph (3), multitapsir and dismay and do not contain principles

legal certainty. The government conducts a unilateral interpretation, which

means that regulated by the Government Regulation (PP), as

the mandate of Section 116 Act 36/2009 is simply regulating the addictive substance

which was conceived in tobacco and tobacco products only.

Whereas other materials containing addictive substances are shaped

solid, liquid, and gas do not need to be regulated by the Government. The setting

is so clearly a tendensised and unobjective setting,

because it does not correspond to the norm formulation system, even

contrary to the constitution;

(23) That the formulation of the norm is mutual. conflicting and not meeting

rules in the formation of laws,

as the Applicant Dalil has described above, clearly

in the application process can be exassive, there could be an aberration

performed by the Government in further resettings

regarding Addictive substances in Government Regulation.

(24) That the occurrence of conflict norm in Section 113 paragraph (1), paragraph (2)

and paragraph (3) as well as the authority granted in Section 116

to the Government to regulate more Under this Article 113,

allows the Government to use such authority to

regulate tobacco and tobacco products in this case cigarettes, with

according to the Government itself, as well as the Government itself, and

can even disguise it with narcotics or psychotropic.

The norm is clearly not providing a guarantee

for legal certainty to anyone, and clearly infliting a loss

for the applicant;

(25) That Section 116 Act 36/2009, which authorizes

Government to issue Government Regulation and then

17

will be specified by the President, which is not

providing legal certainty;

(26) That the esting

the authority to the Government to issue the Regulation

Government is a provision in conflict with Section 5 of the paragraph (2)

Constitution of 1945;

(27) That the applicant I and the applicant II as tobacco farmers are harmed

the rights of his constitution/potentially aggrieved his constitutional rights from

the enactment of Article 113 of the paragraph (1), paragraph (2), and paragraph (3) as well as Article 116 of the Act

36/2009. As a tobacco farmer, the applicant I and the applicant II can

be categorized as farmers who plant the plants that

are categorized as narcotics;

(28) Applicant III as the Owner of the Pelinting Industry Rokok, can be anglised

as an industry that has the same category as the bookies

narcotics. As well as its existence can be considered an Industry that

generates and sells products that are painful,

giving disease to the public as well as unwell-being.

society;

(29) The applicant IV. as a smoker is clearly considered a sick person,

who consumes products containing addictive substances that

conceived by narcotics or psychotropic. Potentially

considered/disputed as Narcotics or psychotropic addicts

by the public;

(30) That based on the account's account of the above, it is clear and real

the existence of Article 113 of the paragraph (1), paragraph (2), and verse (3), as well as Section 116

Act 36/2009 contrary to Article 28D of paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution and

18

Article 5 of the paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution;

(31) That the constitution must guarantee the existence of protection of the rights for

the people by the ruler, including guarantees that the Act and

laws under it. not contradictory to

rights in the constitution;

(32) That the word "security" is specified in Title Chapter Six,

The Seventh Part, which is then reaffirmed in Article 113 of the paragraph (1)

Act 36/2009, if viewed in the great dictionary of the Indonesian language word

"Security" comes from the basic word "safe" have a meaning:

a) is free of harm;

b) is free of interference;

c) is protected or veiled; cannot be taken persons;

d) definitely; not detrimental; it contains risk; tentram; do not feel

fear or worry.

(33) That the basic word "safe" was later added "peng" and

the suffix "an", which later became the word "peng.a.man.an", where

according to the large dictionary Indonesian means "process, way, deed

secure". (National Education Department Language Center,

The Great Dictionary of Indonesian, Third Edition, Balai Pustaka, Jakarta,

2002, Thing 35); (Vide Evidence P-8)

(34) That with the meaning of the word "safeguard" according to the dictionary

large the Indonesian language, when connected to

Section 113 of the paragraph (1), paragraph (2), and paragraph (3) then the meaning of the formula

The section is:

a) The process, the way, and the works of securing the use of the material

contains an addictive substance, which includes tobacco, a product that

contains tobacco, solid, fluid, and gas aims not to

interfere with and harm personal health,

family, community, and environment;

b) The process, way and deeds of securing the use of materials

contains an adkitive substance is by means of setting and

sets the production, circulation, and use of materials that

contains an addictive substance, where it must meet the standard and/or

terms that have been established;

19

(35) That the arrangement against the addictive substance includes tobacco and products

tobacco, which is carried out in the security manner as

referred to in Article 113 of the paragraph (1), paragraph (2), and paragraph (3) Act 36/2009

clearly harms the petitioners. The applicant I and the applicant II who works

as a tobacco farmer, in doing something, that is, planting

tobacco will feel fear because of the provisions of the article a quo clearly and

real shows the absence of rationalization It's about setting

"addictive substance". With the mention of tobacco as

addictive substances can be assessed inhibiting and reducing product type

tobacco plants resulting in the loss of the applicant ' s materiel

because the cretek must have been using tobacco. Indonesia, so

article a quo is contrary to the 1845 Constitution;

(36) That the petitioners are clearly not guaranteed the right to do or not

do something that is a fundamental right. Tobacco planting is

clearly constituting the constitutional right of the Applicant who is protected by

the constitution as stated in Article 28G of the paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

Not guaranteed the right of the applicant in planting tobacco, seen

of the presence of tobacco settings and firm tobacco products

is called entry into the addictive substance. Where against tobacco and

tobacco products will be set up in Government Regulations regarding

production, circulation, and use, within the framework

"safeguards";

The safe sense for citizens can be created if An invite-

current applicable invitation or meeting of the elements

legal certainty. The uncertainty of the law will incur fear

against the citizens. With the enactment of Article 113 of the paragraph (1), paragraph (2),

and paragraph (3) as well as Section 116 Act 36/2009 that does not meet the elements

legal certainty, incline uncertain or was-was or the taste

fear for doing or not doing;

(37) Statutory Uncertainty of tobacco and products

tobacco as in the formulation of Article 113 of the paragraph (1), paragraph (2), and

paragraph (3) as well as Section 116 Act 36/2009, in the absence of harmonization

with Act No. 18 of the Year 2004 on Plantation

(later called Act 18/2004) this, in effect On the very hard people

20

countries to find out if tobacco is still an industry

priority like agro-based industry. Then, whether the product industry

tobacco in this case the cigarette industry would still still buy

the local tobacco of tobacco farmers. Because it can't be people

able to plant tobacco properly if there is no sense of security.

It clearly harms the petitioners to grow tobacco and

entrepreneurs in the field of cigarette industry, thus breaking the right

The constitutionality of the applicant;

The explanation of Article 19 of the paragraph (2) of the Act of 18/2004 mentions " Yang dirnaksud

with the strategic commodity plantation is the estate commodity

which has an important role in the social, economic development

and the environment, among other things, palm oil, rubber, cocoa, coffee, sugar cane, and

tobacco ";

(38) That the applicant in this farmer is related to the planting process

the type of tobacco plant and tobacco products need to get

legal certainty to be The continuity of tobacco farmers ' lives and

Indonesia's grip and the national tobacco products industry

can be lestary and awake to meet its life in order

achieving the welfare of life;

(39) That the provisions of Article 113 and Section 116, are clear and real

potentially elicits the occurrence of legal uncertainty and not

assurances of protection from the threat of fear to do or

not do something that is a fundamental right ", so the provisions

section a quo could potentially inflict occurrence of deviation or

violation of the constitution is as set in Article

28D paragraph (1) and 28G paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution;

2. Article 113 of the paragraph (1), paragraph (2), and paragraph (3), as well as Article 116 of the Act 36/2009 Do not provide Warranty for the Benefit Of Technology (1) That the most appropriate and sturdy basis for a democratic country

is a country constitutional (Constitutional state) that

rests on a firm constitution anyway. A constitution that

firmly is a constitution that clearly understands its constitution or

constitutionality, which governs in detail the boundaries

authority and power of the legislature, executive and judicial.

21

balanced and supervising each other (checks and balances), as well as

provides a fairly broad guarantee in the sense of respect (to

respect), protection (to protect), and fulfillment (to ) citizens ' rights

country and human rights (human rights). In other words,

constitutionalism can also be interpreted as an understanding of

limiting the power and guarantees of the rights of the people through the constitution.

Nino suggests that " constitusionalism means something liked

limited government (understood constitutionalism is something like

constrained government) ", although in its development

varies with conceptions of varying conceptions, of the simplest

to the most complex, as associated with the idea rule of

law, separation of power, individual rights rights, judicial review,

charging public officials, general elections, and so on. (Abdul

Mukthie Fadjar, Constitutional Law And Constitutional Court, Print

First, Constitution Press and Citra Media, Jakarta, 2006, matter. 34-35);

[Vide Evidence P-9]

(2) In general, according to Mahfud MD, that the constitution is defined as

the basic rules of state control which after the withdrawal of the teachings

the sovereignty of the people of JJ. Rousseau, seen as an agreement

a society that provides direction by the public in the

governing power of state government. In other words,

the actual constitution is none other than the realization of democracy with

a deal that the freedom of a ruler is determined by the citizens

The society, and not the other way around, in mina's freedom of society

is determined by a ruler. Therefore, any violation of

the constitution should be viewed as a violation of the social contract.

(Moh Mahfud MD, Democracy and Constitution in Indonesia, Rineka Copyright,

Jakarta, Second Print, 2003, matter. 144-145); [Vide Evidence P-10]

(3) That the Constitution of the Republic of the Republic of the Republic

Indonesia, contains provisions regarding Human Rights,

principles of democracy, economy and social welfare,

even it also contains science and technology. This

shows, how powerful the constitution protects the people in

the various lives that are in the end to achieve prosperity

22

a people of a country;

(4) That the Constitution of 1945 as a science and technology document,

is further machinized in:

Article 28C (1) Everyone is entitled to develop yourself through fulfillment

basic needs, entitled to education and obtaining

benefits from science and technology, arts and culture,

in favor of improving the quality of life and for the welfare of the people

man;

Article 31 (5) The government persuasion science and technology with

upholding the the religious values and the nation's unity to

the progress of civilization as well as the welfare of mankind;

(5) That in line with guaranteed and protection of science and

technology in the 1945 Constitution, the Constitutional Court in some

verdict confirms:

" that one of the background of the birth reform movement which then ushered on reform of the constitution and the political order is because in the past there has been human rights violations in form violence of political violence that among others, is a violation of freedom The repressions. At the time press freedom was installed, freedom of organization was restrained, even academic-scientific freedom was also paged with a restriction that greatly harmed the efforts of the development of Science and Technology (Iptek). Constitutional and political reforms have affirmed the guarantee of protection of these rights, even on the act of the Act has been made various changes in a more friendly direction .... dst ". "Therefore, any form of restraint on freedom of expression .... dst, is not in line with the spirit of reform and the soul of the Constitution of 1945"; " Draw that as an additional basis the opinion of the Court shall be put forward that in in the laws of the college have been reaffirmed the principle of academic freedom and the freedom of academic mimbar. Academic freedom is the freedom to conduct research or scientific activities according to scientific principles and methods, while the freedom of academic mimbar is the freedom to cultivate and announce scientific findings or information for the To preach the life of a nation without being deterred by anyone, except for the very purpose of breaking the law ... etc. "; (Vide Putermination of the Constitutional Court Number 9/PUU-VII/2009); " A draw that in view of the cigarette industry All the way up downstream, the understanding of the increase in raw materials.

23

is attempted to increase it in good standards by reducing the hazardous materials and environmental damage as low as possible according to good agricultural practices as described by Dr. Ir. Samsuri, the applicant, then the Court argued that the allocation of the excise funds of tobacco was thus to fund the improvement of the quality of the raw materials, as set in Article 66A paragraph (1), should be interpreted to fund activities at the peasant level. Tobacco-producing that requires the coaching and guidance of farmers, technology transfers, and technology escorts at the farmer's level in order to produce the expected raw materials .... etc. " (Vide Verdict of Constitutional Court Number 54 /PUU-VI/2008).

(6) That based on that above, in its verdict, at its core

The Constitutional Court affirm that the continuity of science

knowledge and technology is for improving the quality of life

human and For the welfare of mankind, as well as for the progress of the civilization and the welfare of mankind. It includes

also against increased tobacco quality, as a raw material

tobacco products are cigarettes. Where improvement of the quality of materials

defaults is attempted to increase it in good standards

by reducing the hazardous materials and environmental damage

as low as possible according to the provisions of good agricultural practices.

Meaning, the increase in the quality of cigarette raw materials, i.e. tobacco, is also

striving towards the quality of tobacco that has an impact that

is good for health. And so the health science point of view, which

all this time saw that tobacco was a bad effect for

health is no longer the case. Thus, tobacco is expected

Indonesia can be a health plant, which has an impact

which is good for health and can be beneficial to farmers

tobacco as well as the welfare of mankind;

(7) That the 36/2009 Act governs the addictive substance, which is set in Article 113

paragraph (1), paragraph (2), and paragraph (3) and Section 116, in Chapter Six, Section

Seventeenth " Addictive Substances ', which reads:

Article 113 (1) Security use of materials containing addictive substances

directed to not interfere and harm health

individual, family, community, and environment;

24

(2) The addictive substance as referred to in paragraph (1) includes tobacco,

a product containing tobacco, solid, liquid, and gas that

is addictive that its use may lead to a loss

for itself and/or its surrounding communities;

(3) Production, circulation, and use of substance containing substances

addictive must meet the standards and/or requirements that

set.

The explanation of Article 113 (3) of the standard penetration is directed for the addictive substances conceived by

such materials may be pressed to prevent the rebleeding of

false

. The assignment of materials usage requirements

contains addictive substances intended to suppress and prevent

disruptive or adverse use of health.

Section 116 Further provisions regarding the security of the materials contains

The addictive substance is set with Government Regulation.

(8) That by the presence of provisions that the plant

tobacco is adjudicating the addictive substance, which is harmful to health

as set in Article 113 paragraph (1), paragraph (2), and paragraph (3) Act

36/2009 clearly potential adverse the constitutional rights of the applicant.

According to the applicant in planting tobacco there is no guarantee

be prosperous if tobacco and tobacco products have

justified as stated in section a quo;

As a boon from God SWT, God Almighty, plant

tobacco is obviously a good plant, and the fact has

provides welfare for the petitioners. The cigarette industry that

absorbed the overall tobacco of Indonesia including tobacco

Temanggung, Madura tobacco, and tobacco from other regions as well as

the Indonesian grip, and also absorbed the Indonesian workforce less

more 30 million people, i.e. tobacco farmers, factory workers, craftsmen

tobacco, tobacco basket makers, rigene makers, sellers

cigarette smoking, and other related parties;

(9) That setting against tobacco and tobacco products, which

set through " addictive substance safeguards ' potentially not giving

25

prosperity for the Applicant in particular, and in the community

generally. This is evidenced by the public acceptance of

the meaning of the addictive substance given to tobacco. Even some

The Local Government is committing a rejection of tobacco that

is categorized as a material containing " addictive substances '. Among them,

the Regent Pamekasan, Kholilurrahman, rejects the draft regulations

government (RPP) and draft legislation (bill) about

tobacco. (http:// www. bhirawa.co.id/arsip/47447-bupati-

support :rejection-rppruu-tobacco). (VIDE PROOF P-11). Bupati Kendal,

Widya Kandi Susanti supports Kendal tobacco farmers, who

rejects the Government Regulation Design (RPP) plan

about the meetings; (http://www.suara is independent. comlvi/index.

php/read/news/2011/03/16/80380/Bupati-Kendal-Dukung-Termination-

RPP). (VIDE PROOF P-12). West Nusa Tenggara Governor Muhammad

Zainul Majdi rejected the bill (bill) regarding

the meeting was associated with an addictive substance. (HTTP:11WWW.TEMPO. co/read/

news/2011/09/16/179356687/Governor-NTB-Reject-Tobacco-Linked-

Zat-Younger). (VIDE PROOF P-13);

(10) That tobacco alone if viewed from multi disciplinary science

should be considered good. Not just tobacco plants, there's your jamu and

others. If it turns out to be in modern health care, and

even the view of the World Health Agency (World Health

Organization/WHO), which looks at the negative impact of tobacco

against the health of smokers and not The smoker, also not

as well as the merta could be justified in the norm that

insists that tobacco has a bad impact on health;

(11) That as a country, Indonesia is rich with resources

nature, and it ' s a potential that should continue to be excavated and

developed with based on Science and

Technology (IPTEK). One of the wealth of Indonesia will be the source

nature of nature is one of the world's best tobacco producers;

Tobacco of the Stage called Tobacco Srintil and Tobacco.

Madura that needs to be conserved and Preserved the delicency,

The curvature is because it's a lauk for the cigarette cretek that

26

is a hallmark of Indonesia including cigar material;

Therefore, for the sake of the nation's progress as well as welfare

society, research on tobacco plants and products

tobacco must continue developed and supported;

(12) That for the sake of the well-being of mankind, the existence of science

knowledge and technology became very important in an era that

science, which is based on the scientific method by using

modern and advanced technologies, in order to improve quality

tobacco is a good tobacco quality for health, very

required and should not be deterred by anyone.

Currently information about the dangers of tobacco and tobacco products

not only has The ternorate is expressly in Article 113 of the paragraph (1),

paragraph (2), and paragraph (3) of the Act 36/2009. However, the dangers of tobacco

and tobacco products are very dominant and have led to t/p>

The Constitutional Court is the guardian of the Constitution and the

final The interpreter of the Constitution. Accordingly, pursuant to all

the reason for the application above the Constitutional Court is expected to

please state that the provisions of Article 113 paragraph (1), paragraph (2), and

paragraph (3) as well as Section 116 Act 36/2009 are contrary to, Section 28D

paragraph (1), Section 28G paragraph (1), Section 5 of the paragraph (2), Article 28C paragraph (1), and

Article 31 of the paragraph (5) of the 1945 Constitution. Accordingly, the provisions of Article 113 of the paragraph

(1), paragraph (2), and paragraph (3) as well as Section 116 Act 36/2009 are

unconstitutional and declared to have no legal force

binding;

IV. Petitum Based on the above descriptions, the applicant pleads to Yang

His Majesty the Justice Constitutional Court of Justice in order to please give the verdict as

following:

30

Primer: 1. Receive and grant the entire request of the applicant;

2. Stating that the charge materials in Section 113 of the paragraph (1), paragraph (2), and

paragraph (3) as well as Section 116 of the Law Number 36 Year 2009 concerning

Health in conflict with Section 28D paragraph (1), Section 28G paragraph (1),

Section 5 of the paragraph (2), Article 28C paragraph (1), as well as Article 31 of the paragraph (5) of the 1945 Constitution;

3. Stating charge materials in Section 113 of the paragraph (1), paragraph (2), and paragraph (3),

as well as Section 116 of the Law No. 36 Year 2009 of Health

does not have a binding legal force with any of its laws;

4. Ordered the loading of this ruling in the Republic of Indonesia News

as it should be;

Subsidair If the Supreme Court of the Constitutional Court argues otherwise, We please

the verdict is as fair (et aequo et bono)

[2.2] weighed that to prove its control, the applicant

submitted a letter of letter proof/writing that has been given a Proof of P-1 until

with the Proof P-14a as follows:

1. Proof of P-1: Photocopy Act No. 36 of the Year 2009 of

Health;

2. Evidence P-2: Photocopy List Industry Number 530 /418/435.110/200,

dated September 17, 2007;

3. Proof P-3: Photocopy of the Population Card on behalf of the Applicant;

4. Evidence P-4: Photocopy of the State Order Law Book written by

Ni'matul Huda;

5. Evidence P-5: Photocopy of the Basic Book of Political Science written by

Miriam Budiardjo;

6. Evidence P-6: Photocopy of the State Administration Law Book written

by Ridwan HR;

7. Evidence P-7: Photocopy Of Government Regulation Design (RPP) Number ...

Year ... About The Securing Of Materials Containing Substances

Addictive Products Of Tobacco For Health;

8. Evidence P-8: Photocopy of the Indonesian dictionary of the Indonesian language;

9. Evidence P-9: Photocopy of the Quotation Book of the Constitution and the Court

The Constitution written by Abdul Mukthie Fadjar;

31

10. Evidence P-10: Photocopy of the Book of Democracy and Constitution in Indonesia

written by Moh. Mahfud MD;

11. Evidence P-11: Photocopy quotes articles/Internet news;

12. Evidence P-12: Photocopy quotes articles/internet news;

13. Evidence P-13: Photocopy Quote article/Internet news;

14. Proof P-14: Photocopy Of The Book Of Divine Cretek ' s Books, Healthy Cigarettes;

15. Proof of p-14a: A photocopy of the Book of the Divine Cretek, a healthy cigarette;

[2.3] weighed that in order to shorten the description in this ruling,

then everything that was stamped on the news of the court event was contained

and is the the inseparable part of this ruling;

3. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

[3.1] Draw that the intent and purpose of the applicant ' s plea

is to test the constitutionality of Article 113 of the paragraph (1), paragraph (2), and paragraph (3),

as well as Section 116 of the Law Number 36 Year 2009 concerning Health

(Sheet State Of The Republic Of Indonesia In 2009 Number 144, Additional

Sheet Country Indonesia Number 5063, subsequently called Act 36/2009)

against Article 5 of the paragraph (2), Article 28C paragraph (1), Article 28D paragraph (1), Article 28G of the paragraph

(1), as well as Article 31 paragraph (5) of the State Basic Law of the Republic of Indonesia

Year 1945 (later called the 1945 Constitution);

[3.2] weighed that before considering the subject matter

The applicant, the Constitutional Court (subsequently called the Court) in advance

would first consider things as following:

a. The Court's authority to prosecute a quo;

b. (legal standing) of the applicant to submit

application a quo;

Against those two, the Court considered it

below: