Scroll To Top
Home \Litigation \  Advanced Search

Country: Indonesia

Litigation SearchRefine/Modify Search

Find decisions that have...

(E.g., Keywords, citations, decision titles, or parties)
OrOr

But don't show pages that have...

Other Search Criteria:

from:to:

Search Results Results 1-10 of 14

Action Seeking Enforcement of Smoke-Free Law in Jakarta Mall [Indonesia] [October 01, 2012]

Information about this decision coming soon. 

Judicial Review of Law No. 36 of 2009, Ruling in Case No. 24 [Indonesia] [September 05, 2012]

Officials from a local Indonesian farming administration and their representative farmers challenged the constitutionality of Article 113 of Indonesia’s Health law.  The farmers claimed the law excluded any beneficial uses for tobacco and thus severely damaged their livelihoods as tobacco farmers.  The court accepted the arguments and found that tobacco also has other beneficial uses despite its dangers to human health.  The court granted the petition holding parts of Article 113 unconstitutional and suggesting a changing of the wording to embody the court’s ruling.

Judicial Review of Law No. 36 of 2009, Ruling in Case No. 66 [Indonesia] [September 05, 2012]

Petitioners, Indonesian tobacco farmers and workers in the tobacco industry, filed a constitutional challenge to Indonesia’s Health law that regulated the use of tobacco.  After establishing the right of the petitioners to challenge the law, the court looked at previous challenges to the same law.  The court decided that petitioners’ challenge was close enough to previous, already decided challenges, to preclude this case and rejected the petition.

President of Indonesia's Failure to Enact Regulations to Implement the 2009 Health Law [Indonesia] [July 27, 2012]

Information about this decision coming soon.

Judicial Review of Law No. 36 of 2009, Ruling in Case No. 86 [Indonesia] [May 15, 2012]

Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of Indonesia’s Health Law regulating tobacco.  The petition was subsequently withdrawn.  The court accepted the withdrawal and ruled that the petition could not be brought to the court again in the future.

Judicial Review of Law No. 36 of 2009, Ruling in Case No. 57 [Indonesia] [April 09, 2012]

Petitioners, Indonesian smokers, challenged the constitutionality of Indonesia’s Health law that sought to restrict smoking in work and public places.  The law sought to create no smoking and designated smoking areas to combat the problem of second-hand smoke.  The petitioners specifically challenged the words “can” and “may” in relation to the establishment of designated smoking areas in Article 115 of the law.  The court granted the petitioners request and held that parts of Article 115 violated the constitution of Indonesia.  The court held these parts would no longer have legal force.

Judicial Review of Article 113 of Law No. 36 of 2009, Ruling in Case No. 19 [Indonesia] [November 01, 2011]

Petitioner, a representative from a tobacco growing region of Indonesia, challenged the portions of the 2009 Health Law that deal with addictive substances, including tobacco products.  Petitioner alleged that the law caused financial losses and alleged violation of the constitutional rights of tobacco farmers, clove farmers, cigarette factory workers and other concerned parties.  The Court rejected the petition in its entirety, ruling that tobacco was addictive and properly included within the law.  They held that to treat it differently from other addictive substances would also result in impermissible legal uncertainty.  Furthermore, they rejected petitioners claims that the regulation of tobacco as an addictive substance violated the right to work by harming the tobacco production industry. The decision in this case is final; no further appeals are permitted.

Judicial Review of Articles 113, 114 and 199 of Law No. 36 of 2009, Ruling in Case 34 [Indonesia] [October 18, 2011]

Several petitioners who farmed tobacco or otherwise were employed by or represented the Indonesian domestic tobacco industry argued that provisions of the Health Law addressing tobacco products would cause a decrease in production which would infringe on their right to work.  Petitioners also challenged that tobacco was unfairly targeted as opposed to other "similar" addictive products, such as food, coffee or sports drinks.  The court examined the constitutional issue of "whether the obligation inclusion of health warnings on cigarettes is discriminatory, does not guarantee a decent living, and not provide a fair legal certainty." The Court found that the law was compatible with the petitioner's right to work, because they would still be able to continue their trade and that the right to health took priority over the other less definite constitutional rights asserted by petitioners. Upholding the graphical warning requirement, the Court stated that graphical warnings "will further ensure the fulfillment constitutional rights of citizens of Indonesia, especially the consumer and/ or potential consumers of cigarettes to obtain information about the dangers of smoking, as consumers and / or prospective customers." 

Judicial Review of Article 114 of Law No. 36 of 2009, Ruling in Case 43 [Indonesia] [October 18, 2011]

A group of public health advocates, including Indonesian doctors and a student public health association, filed a petition to clarify the pack warnings provision of the Indonesian public health law - Article 114 of Law Number 36 Year 2009.  Petitioners sought to clarify the intent of the law which states that graphic warnings "may" accompany textual warnings required on tobacco packaging in contradiction to subsequent provision imposing penalties if tobacco product packaging does not include graphic health warnings.  The Court ruled that this matter already had been adjudicated, as it had held that graphic health are required in a related case.

Jakarta Governor's Decree on Smoke-Free Environments [Indonesia] [September 19, 2011]

Information about this decision coming soon.

The materials and analysis available at this website are for informational and educational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice.