Judicial Review of Articles 113, 114 and 199 of Law No. 36 of 2009, Ruling in Case 34
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."