Petition of dental artisans represented by Hamdani Prayogo in the review of Law No. 29/2004 regarding Medical Practice in the Constitutional Court, considered by the House of Representatives (DPR) has no legal basis. Because, the Act expressly Practicing medicine has arranged a series of activities undertaken by the medical profession and the dental profession."The provisions set forth in Article 73 paragraph (2), in no way intended to professions other than doctors and dentists profession," explained the current Member of Parliament representing the House of Representatives Sarifuddin testify at the hearing in case No. 40/PUU-X/2012, the Constitutional Court on Tuesday (12/6) afternoon.
The applicant in this review of Article 73 paragraph (2) the Act which reads, "Every person shall not use the tools, methods or other means of providing services to the community that gave the impression as if the question is the doctor or dentist who has had a letter of registration and / or permit the practice. "And, Article 78 of the Act which 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 registration marks registration mark or permit the dentist practices 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). "Furthermore, Sarifuddin also said that the applicant is expected to re-read Article 73 paragraph (3) the Act which reads "The provisions referred to in paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) does not apply to health workers authorized by legislation.
In this verse there is an exception to the paragraph before the paragraph (1) and (2)."So that the Petitioner’s argument that states Article 73 paragraph (2) are multiple interpretations, to be unwarranted. Because clearly in Article 73 paragraph (2) is only aimed at the professional doctors and dentists, but other professions as may be authorized by legislation and regulations,"explained Sarifuddin in front of the judges of the Constitutional Court led by Deputy Chief Justice Achmad Sodiki.
Therefore, the House believes the article was tested by a qualified dentist did not eliminate other professions including dental professional handyman. "So that the Petitioner has no rationale and strong legal arguments," he explained.
It is also addressed by the Government as represented by the Advisor to the Minister of Health Health Technology and Globalization Agus Purwadianto. In his speech, Agus said that Article 73 paragraph (2) and Article (78) Medical Practice Act would essentially provide a guarantee of legal certainty for the enforcement of health services, because it protects the public from incompetent practice of ministry."The practice of health care including dental care is only awarded to personnel who have competence and authority recognized by the legislation," said the expert staff of the Ministry of Health. According to the Government, those articles in the Medical Practice Act also provides protection to anyone from the general practice doctors / dentists who do not have quality in providing services to the community. "Therefore (article a quo) is not contrary to the provisions of Section 28D of the 1945 Constitution," said Agus.
Court in the trial also heard witness testimony presented by the Applicant. One of them is Dwi Waris Supriyono. As handyman teeth, Dwi Waris has run handyman dental profession since 1991. While the handyman profession of the tooth, he was able to feed their families. But with the new government regulation, he feels threatened its existence in carrying out the dental profession as a carpenter. "We as a dental worker to feel threatened when there is a socialization of the media told us not as handyman teeth," said Dwi Waris. As reported previously, the Applicant states that these articles cannot provide legal certainty and also are 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. "Therefore a quo provisions contrary to Article 27 Paragraph (2), Article 28D of the 1945 Constitution." (Shohibul Umam / mh/Yazid.tr)