---

Depart from the legal uncertainty did not get a fair and equal treatment before the law with the provisions of Article 7 paragraph (2) and Article 78 of Law no. 29/2004 on the Practice of Medicine, Dental associations Association of Junior Independent (ASTAGIRI) represented by Dwi Supriyono and Muhammad Waris Jubaidi, respectively as Chairman and General Secretary ASTAGIRI, Medical Practices Act apply to the Constitutional Court on Thursday (10/5).

Besides ASTAGIRI as Petitioner I, the petition was also filed by the individual builders Hamdani Prayogo teeth and Petitioner as in the case of No. II. 40/PUU-X/2012 this. In addition to not give legal certainty, they said Article a quo also be multiple interpretations. "So if there is a contact area of work and / or no resemblance to the work of a doctor or dentist deemed to have committed medical practice," said attorney of the applicant M. Sholeh Amin.

While the provisions of Article 7 paragraph (2) reads, "Every person shall not use the tools, methods or other means of providing services to the people who create the impression in question is the doctor or dentist who has had a letter of registration and / or letter permit to practice. "

Further provisions of Article 78 reads, "Any person who knowingly uses the tools, methods or other means of providing services to the people who create the impression in question is the doctor or dentist who has had a doctor’s letter or letter of the registration mark registration mark dental practice or permit referred to in Article 73 paragraph (20 shall be punished with imprisonment of 5 (five) years or a maximum fine of Rp. 150,000,000.00 (one hundred and fifty million rupiah). "

According to the Petitioners, the phrase "Every person shall not use the tools, methods or other means ..." could be interpreted the same, identical or similar to the work of "tooth carpenter, handyman sort of fracture, prosthesis maker handyman skills, and others. All of them, they said, because it is forbidden to use the tools, methods or other means that can be defined making it appear as if the doctor concerned.

Furthermore, the prohibition contained in the Act, explained the applicant, accompanied by the threat of imprisonment in accordance with Article 78 of the Act. "While the formulation of norms of the criminal act is not clear and unequivocal, and never an assurance of law as guaranteed in the constitution," said Sholeh. Therefore, according to the Petitioners, these articles against the 1945 Constitution, one of which 28D Paragraph (1).

 

The government ban

The petitioners also said that, as a result of the articles that are multiple interpretations of unilaterally with No. 1871/menkes/per/1X/20111 in 2011 on the Regulation of the Minister of Health Revocation No. 339/MENKES/PER/V/1989 of Junior Dental Work, the Government through the Ministry of Health banned the dental worker to not run the job again.

"All builders’ dental practice is not allowed to carry out the practice," said attorney of the applicant M. Amin.

Decision, the Petitioners further, nor pay attention to the rights of artisans tooth numbering 75,000 people, spread over a number of regions in Indonesia. "However, if only the builders who are prohibited to carry out dental work, while other work is not prohibited, so it is discriminatory," said the Petitioners.

Constitutional judges consisting of M. Akil Mochtar, Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi (chairman), and Hamdan Zoelva, the occasion also gave the advice in relation with the legal status of the applicant, the reasons why the appeal was filed, and the petition in the petition of the Petitioner. "It’s the entire dental worker; there are no serial bone builders. Why serial bone is extends to the builders as well? Focus," said Sumadi Fadlil when giving advice to the applicant and its attorneys. (Shohibul Umam / mh/Yazid.tr)

---