Muhammadiyah Central Board, represented by Din Syamsudin filed judicial review of Act 44/2009 concerning the Hospital to the Constitutional Court (MK) on Thursday (17/4). Case Number 38/PUU-XI/2013 preliminary hearing is chaired by the Deputy Chief Justice Ahmad Sodiki.

In the main petition, Petitioner, represented by the attorney Syaiful Bakhri, argued that constitutional rights violated due to the enactment of Article 7 (4), Article 17, Article 21, Article 25 paragraph (5), Article 62, Article 63 paragraph (2) and paragraph (3), and Article 64 paragraph (1) of the RS. According to the applicant, the articles is contrary to the constitutional rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 28C (2),  Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution,  Section 28E (3) of the 1945 Constitution.

Petitioner explained provisions of Article 7 paragraph (4) of the Act because the RS is clearly detrimental for the top management of the hospital has been established by the applicant prior to any provisions of the Act RS. If the applicant prior to exercise control directly to its members, then the presence of a new legal entity which will give rise to the dualism of authority in the applicant legal entity itself. "This reduces constitutional rights as a legal entity that has since required the Petitioner to establish a special legal entity," said Syaiful.

However, by maintaining the existing legal forms, Petitioner experienced a bottleneck on licensing in particular regarding the operating permit renewal was rejected by the Ministry of Health and the Board competent. Applicants may cause conditions stretcher sanctioned as listed in Article 62, Article 63 paragraph (2) and paragraph (3), and Article 64 paragraph (1) of the RS. "The applicant has established several hospitals, but its existence is not guaranteed and is not recognized by the state simply because it is not a legal entity established in a particular hospitalization," he said.

Constitutional Assembly in the opportunity it provides suggestions for repair requests. Hamdan Zoelva asked Petitioner to strengthen the argument petition. According to Hamdan, in addition to technical issues is the implementation of the articles of a quo, the applicant must explain losses quo article. "The applicant must explain the problems experienced substantially. For example, describing the difficulty of control," Hamdan suggests.

Applicant was given 14 days to make repairs petition. The next session will be held with the agenda the examination improvement. (Lulu Anjarsari / mh)