---

Applicant represented by their attorney Muhammad Joni after petition revision session on Act of Health Workers, on Wednesday (12/8) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ganie 

 

 

 

The Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi –MK) again holds petition revision session on Act Number 36 Year 2014 of Health Workers (Undang-Undang Tenaga Kesehatan), on Wednesday (12/8), at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Central board of the Indonesian Doctors Association (Pengurus Besar Ikatan Dokter Indonesia –PB IDI), central board of the Indonesian Dentists Association (Pengurus Besar Persatuan Dokter Gigi Indonesia –PB PDGI), and the Indonesian Medical Council (Konsil Kedokteran Indonesia –KKI), et al. file petition which registered in Case Number 82/PUU-XIII/2015.

Applicant’s Attorney Muhammad Joni claims the Applicant has revised their legal standing. The Applicant asserts the legal standing of the PB IDI (Applicant I) and the PB PDGI (Applicant II) is private legal entity. “We assert the legal standing of Applicant III (the KKI) as state institution established by law, in this case is Act of Medical Practices (Undang-Undang Praktik Kedokteran). Applicant IV is a doctor who conducts medical practices regularly and concerns in Act of Health Workers and Applicant V is concern on Articles contained in Act of Health Workers,” explained him in front of Justice Panel led by Chief Justice Arief Hidayat.  

The Applicant also adds arguments in petition points. In the posita, the Applicant explains norm formulation in Act of Health Workers is exceeding delegates’ mandate. Act Number 36 Year 2009 of Health is merely regulate on health workers, instead of medical personnel which results on mandate exceeding.

“It is true that there is delegation mandate on Article 21 (3) Act of Health and its elucidation which mandates the establishment of Act of Health Workers, however it explicitly excluded medical personnel. Act of Health Workers regulates medical personnel and bound them with entire provisions, including criminal sanction,” explained him.

The Applicant considers they violated by several Articles in Act of Health Workers, among others are Article 1 number 1 and number 6; Article 11 (1) letter a and letter m; Article 11 (2) and (14); Article 12; Article 21 (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6); Article 34 (1), (2), (3), and (5). Moreover, the Applicant questions norm constitutionality of Article 35; Article 36; Article 37; Article 38; Article 39; Article 40; Article 41; Article 42; Article 43; Article 90; and Article 94, all of those regulate the Indonesian Health Workers Council (Konsil Tenaga Kesehatan Indonesia –KTKI).

The Applicant argues, there are conception and paradigmatic errors regarding medical personnel in Act of Health Workers. According to the Applicant, the Act a quo is supposed to differentiate between profession workers (e.g. doctor and dentist) with vocational workers (e.g. dental technician). The Applicant also sues provisions which regulate on the establishment of the KTKI. According to the Applicant, the unification of the Doctors Council with the Dentists Council in the KTKI has lowered doctors’ status. Based on the Act a quo, the KTKI has no supervision, discipline enforcement, and prosecution function. The Applicant assesses, the KTKI as the substitution of the KKI has lost its independency, because the KTKI recently no longer responsible to the President. As known, the KTKI is responsible to Health Minister. (Lulu Anjarsari/Prasetyo Adi N)  

---