Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami Agus Sahbani, Andin Aditya Rahman
The Constitutional Court has commenced proceedings on a judicial review of Article 46 (3) (c) of Law No. 32 of 2002 on Broadcasting, specifically on the phrase “demonstrating a form of promoting cigarette smoking.”
The applicants of this judicial review are: Normansyah and Winarti as the parents of Muhammad Fathi Akbar; Ari Subagio and Cathrina Triwidarti as the parents of Oktavianus Bimo Archa Wibowo; Hilarion Haryoko, Sumiati, and Syaiful Wahid Nurfitri.
The applicants argue that their constitutional rights have been violated by Article 46 (3) (c) of the Broadcasting Law, which states that “broadcasted commercial advertisements are prohibited from demonstrating a form of promoting cigarette smoking.”
The article under review, according to the applicants, encourages consumption of cigarettes among the general public, specifically children and students.
“Article 46 (3) (c) of the Broadcasting Law also causes damages to the health of the general public in Indonesia , degrades public welfare and reduces the quality of life of the nation’s peoples,” stated Mustakim, one the applicants’ legal counsel during the preliminary hearing at the Constitutional Court on Thursday.
Mustakim further referred to a previous judicial review filed at the Constitutional Court, which it rejected primarily because tobacco was at that time not yet declared as an addictive substance by any regulation.
“Article 46 (3) (c) of the Broadcasting Law has been examined under case No. 06/PUU-VII/2009, but the Constitutional Court denied it because, at the time, there were no provisions stating that tobacco is an addictive substance,” he explained.
Mustakim further explained that “cigarettes are a tobacco product that contain addictive substances in accordance with Article 113 (1) and (2) of Law No. 36 of 2009 on Health.”
The applicants requested the Constitutional Court to nullify Article 46 (3) (c) of the Broadcasting Law, specifically the phrase “demonstrating a form of promoting cigarette smoking” because it contradicts Articles 26A, 28B (2), 28C (1), 28D (1) and 28H (1) of the 1945 Constitution.
In response to the application, Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi, member of the panelof judges on this case , stated that the substance of the application is still unclear.
According to Fadlil, the application only explained the relevant articles of the 1945 Constitution but failed to explain the contradictory nature of the articles under review against the articles of the 1945 Constitution.
Furthermore, Fadlil also explained that if the phrase “demonstrating a form of promoting cigarette smoking” is nullified, restrictions on cigarette commercials will instead be removed rather than making them more stringent.
“This must be explained, why is the phrase “demonstrating a form of promoting cigarette smoking” requested to be nullified?”
On the other hand, M. Akil Mochtar, the presiding judge, expressed the view that the substance of the application is unclear with respect to the constitutional impairments suffered by the applicants.
“The applicants’ impairments must also be explained in the application, rather than only explaining inconsistencies,” he explained.
(hot/kc)
Agus Sahbani, Andin Aditya Rahman
The Constitutional Court has commenced proceedings on a judicial review of Article 46 (3) (c) of Law No. 32 of 2002 on Broadcasting, specifically on the phrase “demonstrating a form of promoting cigarette smoking.”
The applicants of this judicial review are: Normansyah and Winarti as the parents of Muhammad Fathi Akbar; Ari Subagio and Cathrina Triwidarti as the parents of Oktavianus Bimo Archa Wibowo; Hilarion Haryoko, Sumiati, and Syaiful Wahid Nurfitri.
The applicants argue that their constitutional rights have been violated by Article 46 (3) (c) of the Broadcasting Law, which states that “broadcasted commercial advertisements are prohibited from demonstrating a form of promoting cigarette smoking.”
The article under review, according to the applicants, encourages consumption of cigarettes among the general public, specifically children and students.
“Article 46 (3) (c) of the Broadcasting Law also causes damages to the health of the general public in Indonesia , degrades public welfare and reduces the quality of life of the nation’s peoples,” stated Mustakim, one the applicants’ legal counsel during the preliminary hearing at the Constitutional Court on Thursday.
Mustakim further referred to a previous judicial review filed at the Constitutional Court, which it rejected primarily because tobacco was at that time not yet declared as an addictive substance by any regulation.
“Article 46 (3) (c) of the Broadcasting Law has been examined under case No. 06/PUU-VII/2009, but the Constitutional Court denied it because, at the time, there were no provisions stating that tobacco is an addictive substance,” he explained.
Mustakim further explained that “cigarettes are a tobacco product that contain addictive substances in accordance with Article 113 (1) and (2) of Law No. 36 of 2009 on Health.”
The applicants requested the Constitutional Court to nullify Article 46 (3) (c) of the Broadcasting Law, specifically the phrase “demonstrating a form of promoting cigarette smoking” because it contradicts Articles 26A, 28B (2), 28C (1), 28D (1) and 28H (1) of the 1945 Constitution.
In response to the application, Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi, member of the panelof judges on this case , stated that the substance of the application is still unclear.
According to Fadlil, the application only explained the relevant articles of the 1945 Constitution but failed to explain the contradictory nature of the articles under review against the articles of the 1945 Constitution.
Furthermore, Fadlil also explained that if the phrase “demonstrating a form of promoting cigarette smoking” is nullified, restrictions on cigarette commercials will instead be removed rather than making them more stringent.
“This must be explained, why is the phrase “demonstrating a form of promoting cigarette smoking” requested to be nullified?”
On the other hand, M. Akil Mochtar, the presiding judge, expressed the view that the substance of the application is unclear with respect to the constitutional impairments suffered by the applicants.
“The applicants’ impairments must also be explained in the application, rather than only explaining inconsistencies,” he explained.
(hot/kc)