The Constitutional Court (MK) did a judicial review of Law No. 29/2004 about Medical Practices or known as UU PK toward the 1945 Constitution (UUD1945), on Wednesday, January 21st, 2007 at 10:00AM in the MK Court Room, Jalan Medan Merdeka Barat No. 7, Jakarta.  This was a preliminary session that was led by the Constitutional Judges, including Prof. H.A.S. Natabaya, S.H., L.L.M as Chair, I Dewa Gede Palguna, S.H., M.H., and Soedarsono, S.H., as members.

This case was filed on Monday, February 5, 2007, with file number 04/PUU-V/2007 by dr. Isfandyarie Sarwono, Sp.An., S.H., a medical doctor from Malang.  The petitioner and his lawyers, Sumali S.H., M.H. and Sumardhan S.H. were in the session.

The petitioner questioned several chapters in UU PK, especially Chapter 37 Article (2) regarding medical licenses (Surat Izin Praktek - SIP) for medical doctor and dentists that are only available in three different places. This order restrains other doctors and dentists to perform their duties. According to the petitioner, society highly needs accessible health services. He also said that the order has threatened many doctors especially when they carry out their duties outside hospitals or other places that are not written in their licenses. While every doctor is tied with his or her professional pledge to help anyone who needs medical treatment, anytime, and in any place.

Thus, the petitioner asked the Constitutional Judges to declare that several chapters, including Chapter 29 Article (1), Chapter 36, Chapter 37 Article (2), Chapter 73 Article (1), (2), and (3), Chapter 75 Article (1), Chapter 76, 77, 78, and 79 Clausul a Law 29/2004 about Medical Licenses are against Chapter 28C Article (1), Chapter 28D Article (1) and (2), Chapter 28G Article (1), Chapter 28H Article (1), (2) and (3), Chapter 28I Article (1) and (2), Chapter 34 Article (3) the 1945 Constitution (UUD 1945). The petitioner also requested the Judges to state that the above chapters of Law 29/2004 have no legal standing.

In this session, Judge I Dewa Gede Palguna advised the petitioner to revise his petition by giving details on chapters that are contradictive with chapters in UUD 1945 and also providing rationales on each.  In addition, the petitioner was asked to focus on his constitutional damages on himself, not on others. The same advice was addressed by the Chair of the Panel, Prof. Natabaya. While another member of the Panel, Soedarsono, S.H., questioned why not the Indonesian Doctors Association (IDI) appealed for the judicial review.

The petitioner was given 14 days to improve his petition and to add facts in writing as well as inviting witnesses and experts to the next session.  Before closing the session, the petitioner’s lawyers asked the Judges to include a new petitioner into the case document. The chair of IDI of East Java who was in the session planned to be involved in the plead. (NM)