The provisions limiting the number of clinics for doctors and dentists’ practices to only three set forth in Law No. 29 Year 2004 on Medical Practices (UUPK) are deemed to have harmed the constitutional rights of doctors and the general public. This was expressed by dr. Anny Isfandyarie Sarwono, Sp.An., S.H. cs in a hearing for the judicial review of UUPK against the 1945 Constitution in the Constitutional Court’s courtroom on Friday (9/3). The petition for judicial review was filed by dr. Anny as the Principal Petitioner and six other Petitioners joining to file the petition for judicial review in relation to the losses they have suffered.

In the hearing scheduled for examining the revised petition, the Petitioner had removed certain articles for review from the original petition. In the preliminary hearing examining the original petition held on Wednesday (21/2), the Petitioner requested for review of a number of articles of the UUPK which are related to the obligatory requirements for having Registration Certificate (STR) and Practice License (SIP), namely Article 29 Paragraph (1), Article 36, Article 37 Paragraph (2), Article 73 Paragraph (1), Paragraph (2), Paragraph 3, Article 75 Paragraph (1), Article 76, Article 77, Article 78, and Article 79 Sub-Article a. With the revision of the petition, however, the articles included for judicial review was reduced to six articles, namely only Article 37 Paragraph (2), Article 75 Paragraph (1), Article 76, Article 79 Sub-Article a and Article 79 Sub-Article c. Those Articles limit the number of clinics for doctors’ practice to three and criminalize any doctor violating the provision.

“Now, I do not have the courage to provide emergency medical treatment to patients, although I can say that I am an expert in emergency medical care,” said dr. Bambang Tutuko, one of the Petitioners, who is also an anesthetist, expressing his concern about criminal sanctions on medical activities carried out beyond what the SIP allows.

Meanwhile the other Petitioner, Prof. Dr. RM Padmo Santjojo stated that the UUPK has made it difficult for the people to obtain medical services they need due to limited number of specialists in Indonesia; In fact, certain provinces do not have any specialist. Another Petitioner, H. Chanada Achsani, SH., added that he once needed a medical service due to hypertension crisis but was rejected by a doctor for the reason that the doctor did not have an SIP in the hospital providing services for his medical insurance.

The Chairperson of the Panel of Judges, Prof. HAS Natabaya, SH., LLM. Said that whether the limitation of the number of clinics for doctors’ practice to three is acceptable in the medical science or not, and whether the criminal sanction for violation of the provision is appropriate or not, will depend heavily on the subsequent hearings. Therefore, Judge Natabaya added that the Petitioners must present experts who are truly relevant to this case. (ardli/BAI)