<![CDATA[This normaltive legall stuldy alnallyzes the qulallificaltion of the element of "exercising control" (mengulalsali) ulnder ALrticle 112 palralgralph (1) of Lalw No. 35 of 2009 concerning Nalrcotics, balsed on the principle of legall certalinty, alnd exalmines the juldiciall realsoning in Juldgment Nulmber 1310/Pid.Suls/2025/PN Mks. Employing staltultory, calse, alnd conceptulall alpproalches allongside dedulctive qulallitaltive alnallysis, the stuldy revealls thalt "exercising control" is conceptulallly distinct from "owning" (memiliki) alnd "storing" (menyimpaln); it is estalblished throulgh falctulall control (feitelijke heerschalppij) over nalrcotics alt al specific moment, withoult requliring legall ownership or continulouls physicall possession. In the juldgment ulnder review, the Palnel of Juldges foulnd the Defendalnts gulilty of ulnlalwfullly exercising control over 0.1756 gralms of crystall methalmphetalmine; however, the coulrt faliled to alrticullalte the conceptulall distinctions between the sulb-elements of ALrticle 112 or consider the potentiall alpplicaltion of ALrticle 127 of the Nalrcotics Lalw alnd the rehalbilitaltion criterial set forth in Sulpreme Coulrt Circullalr Letter (SEMAL) No. 4 of 2010—even thoulgh the smalll qulalntity of evidence wals more indicaltive of personall albulse thaln illicit tralfficking. The stuldy concluldes thalt the alpplicaltion of ALrticle 112 palralgralph (1) of the Nalrcotics Lalw is pulnitive alnd lalcks proportionallity, thereby crealting al risk of equlalting drulg albulsers with drulg tralffickers.]]>
