---

Witness presented by the Indonesian Doctors Association (IDI) Muhammad Akbar when giving testimony in the hearing of judicial review of Law on Medical Education on Monday (4/9) in the Plenary Hall of the Constitutional Court Building. Photo by PR/Ganie.

The witness presented by the Indonesian Doctors Association (IDI) Muhammad Akbar stated that the content of Primary Healthcare Physicians (DLP) was similar to the Family Doctor Program. This was delivered during the judicial review hearing of Law Number 29 Year 2004 on Medical Practice (and Law Number 20 Year 2003 on Medical Education on Monday (4/9).

Akbar as Witness to the Relevant Party stated that 80 percent of DLP content was the same as that of the family doctor program. It was, according to him, the underlying cause why IDI had not agreed on the implementation of the DLP program.

"I stress that IDI does not reject the Constitutional Court’s decision on DLP. However, we still do not agree with the existing content of the DLP," he explained while illustrating the DLP Working Group in the session led by Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Arief Hidayat.

Akbar as Chairman of the Educational Division of IDI explained that the similarities of DLP content with that of the Family Doctor Program would cause various negative impacts. These impacts include malpractice, code violation, and overlapping authority between the two existing types of doctors. "In the end, this will cause a horizontal conflict in the community," he said in the hearing of case No. 10/PUU-XV/2017.

Meanwhile, a lecturer at the Faculty of Law of Andalas University, Suharizal, stated that IDI was a state organ whose authority was regulated in the Medical Practice Law. He mentioned that there were16 norms that regulated the authority of IDI given by the state.

Referring to Hans Kelsen\\'s opinion, Suharizal described various state organs, which are either regulated by the Constitution, by the law, and by regulations under the law. "IDI in the current context is categorized as a state organ regulated legislation," said the Petitioners Expert.

According to him, Law No. 29 of 2004 does not prohibit professional associations of doctors other than IDI. However, only IDIs who can perform certain tasks and functions in relation to the Medical Practice Law.

The Constitutionality of DLP

In response to the statement, Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo asked the witness of the Relevant Party for clarification on the truth of IDI\\'s letter of refusal to be present in the socialization of the DLP. In addition, Suhartoyo asked whether IDI issued a white paper related to the rejection of DLP.

Akbar explained that IDI considered the content of DLP still problematic so IDI assumed DLP to be unfinished. However, DLP was even processed up to socialization. "It is akin to having unfinished goods but already discussing other things, which we clearly do not agree with," he explained.

In relation to the boycott letter for the socialization of DLP issued by IDI, Akbar confirmed it. Akbar as an IDI board member participated in the plenary meeting of the decision making.

Meanwhile, the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Arief Hidayat asked for explanation of potential for horizontal conflict if the DLP program was implemented. Akbar claimed that the similarities between the DLP program and the family doctor program would make people confused about the differentiation of doctors. "It will confuse the public when they want to seek treatment," said Akbar.

In addition, Akbar explained that DLP whose authority overlapped with Family Doctors made doctors\\' work inefficient. Thus, according to him, the DLP program is not necessary if [the public’s needs] can be met through the Family Doctor program.

In response to Akbar\\'s answer, Arief stated that he did not see any opinions potentially causing horizontal conflicts because what Akbar highlighted was the content of DLP. The Constitutional Court is concerned with its constitutionality. "It means that the issue of content should not be an excuse for not applying DLP. Therefore, the Constitutional Court\\'s decision is legally binding,” he said.

He also talked about the Court\\'s Decision on DLP in December 2015. The core of DLP is the protection of underprivileged people who cannot access specialists because specialists are expensive and not affordable. Therefore, the foundation of DLP implementation is noble for the middle- to lower-class families.

The Petitioners are three doctors, namely Judilherry Justam, Nurdadi Saleh, and Pradana Soewondo. The Petitioners review the provisions of Article 1 number 4, number 12, number 13, and Article 14 paragraph (1) letter a, Article 29 paragraph (3) letter d, and Article 38 paragraph (1) letter c of Medical Practice Law. The Petitioners also review the provisions of Article 24 paragraph (1), Article 36 paragraph (3), and Article 39 paragraph (2) of the Medical Education Law.

According to the Petitioners, the authority of IDI in the issuance of competence certificates and doctor\\'s practice license recommendation makes IDI a super-body and a superpower. It is considered potential in creating arbitrary attitude regardless of the existing law.

In addition, the Petitioners considered that was is no need for a certificate of competence from the Indonesian Physicians Collegium (KDI), which was established by IDI. Therefore, every graduate of the Faculty of Medicine who has passed the competence test in accordance with Article 36 paragraph (3) of the Medical Education Law will get a professional certificate in the form of a doctor\'s diploma. 

(ARS/lul/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---