This is a brief update on the Health Bill and the paragraph that went missing as the law traveled from the House of Representatives (DPR) to the State Secretariat for signing by the president in order to be enacted into law. The Health Bill has become Law No. 36 of 2009 and is now in force. However, there are still questions as to how Article 113(2) of the Bill went missing in action and was left out of the draft of the bill. These questions center on whether this was a conscious decision or just mere oversight on the final proof-reading of the bill. And, what consequences there are for any deliberate attempt to amend the bill once it has been agreed by the DPR.
For a more detailed overview of the provisions of the Health Law see ILB No.1188 15/9/2009.
The provision that went missing related to addictive substances, in particular tobacco. Article 113(2) states what addictive substances are. This includes tobacco as an addictive substance, and in effect will place controls on tobacco and how it is to be used and distributed. The provision would seemingly include second-hand effects of the addictive substances as well as first hand impacts. Unfortunately, the Elucidation to the provision is silent on this issue.
The matter of interest is not the inclusion of the provision, but rather how it managed to disappear from the DPR-approved version. There are some who suspect that there was corruption involved. However, it seems unlikely that the missing provision would not have been discovered at some point in the future anyway. Nevertheless, the issue has raised some interesting legal issues with regards to how a deliberate act of amending a passed law would be sanctioned. This is of particular importance because Law No. 10 of 2004 on Legislation Drafting does not include any provisions with respect to penalizing criminal behavior in the finalizing of legislation.
In any event the missing provision in the bill was detected and reinserted prior to the president signing the bill into law.
This is a brief update on the Health Bill and the paragraph that went missing as the law traveled from the House of Representatives (DPR) to the State Secretariat for signing by the president in order to be enacted into law. The Health Bill has become Law No. 36 of 2009 and is now in force. However, there are still questions as to how Article 113(2) of the Bill went missing in action and was left out of the draft of the bill. These questions center on whether this was a conscious decision or just mere oversight on the final proof-reading of the bill. And, what consequences there are for any deliberate attempt to amend the bill once it has been agreed by the DPR.
For a more detailed overview of the provisions of the Health Law see ILB No.1188 15/9/2009.
The provision that went missing related to addictive substances, in particular tobacco. Article 113(2) states what addictive substances are. This includes tobacco as an addictive substance, and in effect will place controls on tobacco and how it is to be used and distributed. The provision would seemingly include second-hand effects of the addictive substances as well as first hand impacts. Unfortunately, the Elucidation to the provision is silent on this issue.
The matter of interest is not the inclusion of the provision, but rather how it managed to disappear from the DPR-approved version. There are some who suspect that there was corruption involved. However, it seems unlikely that the missing provision would not have been discovered at some point in the future anyway. Nevertheless, the issue has raised some interesting legal issues with regards to how a deliberate act of amending a passed law would be sanctioned. This is of particular importance because Law No. 10 of 2004 on Legislation Drafting does not include any provisions with respect to penalizing criminal behavior in the finalizing of legislation.
In any event the missing provision in the bill was detected and reinserted prior to the president signing the bill into law.