logo
  

Indonesian Court Rejects Petition To Use Marijuana For Medical Purposes In Country

The Constitutional Court panel of judges in Jakarta on Wednesday gave a verdict for the class action lawsuit for the use of cannabis for medical purposes. The court decided that cannabis will remain a banned substance in Indonesia and will still continue as a Class 1 narcotics.

Constitutional Court Chief Justice Anwar Usman read out the verdict on July 20, saying that the court was "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 IV (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.

The petitioners were challenging part of the Constitution that said "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 like "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."

The petitioner had also challenged another provision of the law, which said that "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.

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 provisions mentioned by the Petitioners are integrated and used in considering the normal constitutionality of Article 8 paragraph 1.

Considering all of the above-mentioned legal considerations, the Court concludes that the Petitioners' petition has no legal basis in its entirety. Justice Suhartoyo, while reading out the points of consideration, said, "Meanwhile, the arguments and other matters are not considered further because they are deemed irrelevant."

For comments and feedback contact: editorial@rttnews.com

Health News

Follow RTT