Indonesian Constitutional Court Reject Medical Cannabis Appeal
TEMPO.CO, Jakarta - The Constitutional Court (MK) panel of judges on Wednesday produced a verdict for the class action lawsuit regarding the use of medical cannabis and decided that cannabis or marijuana in Indonesia will continue to be banned and will still exist as a class 1 narcotics.
Constitutional Court Chief Justice Anwar Usman read out the verdict on July 20, “Rejecting the application from the petitioner in its entirety.”
The lawsuit was filed by six plaintiffs that comprise members of the public and organizational members. The Constitutional Court stated that applicant I Dwi Pertiwi, applicant II Santi Warastuti, applicant III Nafiah Murhayanti, and applicant III Perkumpulan Rumah Cemara, had legal standing to file a quo petition.
Meanwhile, applicant V of the Institute for Criminal Justice Reform (ICJR) and applicant VI of the Association of Community Legal Aid Institutions or Community Legal Aid Institute (LBHM) do not have the legal standing to file a quo application.
To that end, the Constitutional Court also decided "Declaring the petition of Petitioners V and VI cannot be accepted."
Challenging Two Articles in the Law
In this case 106/PUUXVIII/2020, there are two articles that were sued by the applicant.
- Elucidation of Article 6 paragraph 1
The first is the explanation of Article 6 paragraph 1 letter a and Article 8 paragraph 1 which reads:
"In this provision what is meant by Narcotics Category I is Narcotics that can only be used for the purpose of developing science and not being used in therapy, and has a very high potential to cause dependence."
The Petitioners also asked the Constitutional Court to annul this article and declare that it has no binding legal force as long as it is not read:
“In this provision what is meant by Narcotics Category I is Narcotics that can be used for the purpose of developing science and health services and or therapy and has a very high potential to cause dependence.
- Article 8 paragraph 1
The second is Article 8 paragraph 1 which reads:
"Class I narcotics are prohibited from being used for the benefit of health services."
The Petitioner also asked the Constitutional Court to annul this article and immediately stated that it had no legal force to increase. These two articles were challenged by a number of applicants.
Constitutional Court Consideration
A number of things are considered by the Court. One of them, the Court is of the opinion that legal considerations in assessing the constitutionality of the Elucidation of Article 6 paragraph (1) letter a of Law 35 2009 are integrated and used in considering the normal constitutionality of Article 8 paragraph 1.
The Court has held that the Elucidation of Article 6 is constitutional, so as a juridical consequence of the normal provisions of Article 8 paragraph 1, it must be declared constitutional. Considering whereas based on all of the above-mentioned legal considerations, the Court concludes that the Petitioners' petition has no legal basis in its entirety.
"Meanwhile, the arguments and other matters are not considered further because they are deemed irrelevant," said Justice Suhartoyo, reading out the points of consideration.
Click here to get the latest news updates from Tempo in Google News