Attorney Muhammad Asrun conveying the revisions to the petition of the judicial review of the Medical Practice Law, Tuesday (17/10) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The Constitutional Court held second judicial review hearing of Law Number 29 of 2004 on Medical Practice on Wednesday (17/10) in the Panel Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. The petition was filed by 36 individual citizens consisting of lecturers, retired lecturers, and professors in medicine. The Petitioners through attorney Muhammad Asrun conveyed several revisions of the petition, especially on the difference from past judicial review of the Medical Practice Law.

Regarding the session chaired by the Deputy Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Aswanto , Asrun outlined some of the losses suffered by some Petitioners related to the implementation of the a quo norm. Asrun stated that Petitioners 7, 11 and 27 who are general physicians felt they were disadvantaged by the enactment of the a quo law. "Because there should be no collegiate council for general physicians; only for specialists. So, the enactment of the a quo norm is clearly detrimental to the Petitioners\' constitutional rights," he asserted. 

Judilherry Justam as principal Petitioner also added that the reason for the petition citing Decision Number 10/PUU-XV/2017 on the Medical Practice Law was because the Petitioners believed that since the a quo case had been decided, the party that should have implemented the decision had not, or in other words, they had not complied to the decision. 

"So, in the previous case, the judicial review of Article 1 number 12 was related to its elucidation. In this petition, we emphasize the definition that must be interpreted following the substance of the Constitutional Court Decision on the a quo norm. So this is the next reason why we requested for this judicial review," Judilherry explained. 

In the hearing registered as No. 80/PUU-XVI/2018, the Petitioners had previously said that Article 1 numbers 12 and 13 as well as the Elucidation to Article 1, Article 29 paragraph (3) letter d, and Article 28 paragraph (1) of the Medical Practice Law had the potential to harm their constitutional rights. On Article 1 number 12 of the law on the definition of the phrase "Indonesian Doctors Association," the Petitioners claimed that the a quo article was interpreted narrowly solely as the Executive Board of the Indonesian Doctors Association (PB-IDI) at the national level. Whereas, according to the Petitioners, within IDI there are several autonomous organizations, such as the Medical Ethics Honorary Council (MKEK), the Professional Services Development Council (MPPK), and the Indonesian Academy of Medicine (MKKI). They considered the definition of IDI in the a quo article had placed those organizations as subordinates of the PB-IDI, especially the MKKI, resulting in PB-IDI\'s authority intervening the academic/medical field.

If the a quo articles are not corrected, PB-IDI will seize control of the medical field from upstream to downstream due to the lack of checks and balances mechanism among institutions within IDI, as practiced by IDI seniors in the 2000s. Therefore, the Petitioners requested that the Constitutional Court justices declare the articles being reviewed conditionally constitutional. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)