Usman Sumantri representing the Government delivering statement in the judicial review hearing of the Medical Practice Law, Monday (12/11) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

The Constitutional Court once again held the judicial review hearing of Law Number 29 of 2004 on Medical Practice on Monday (12/11) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. The third hearing of the petition No. 80/PUU-XVI/2018 was to hear the statements of the Government and the House.

The Government, represented by of the Ministry of Health’s head of human resources department Usman Sumantri, conveyed that the Petitioners’ petition was not about norm constitutionality. He explained that the Petitioner’s petitum was norm addition and therefore not the authority of the Constitutional Court, but the legislators’. Thus, he added, there was no constitutionality issue of the norm.

“The Petitioners’ petitum requested that Article 1 number 13 be interpreted as, “The Indonesian Medical Council and the Indonesia Dental College are bodies formed by the professional organization of each branch of the disciplines tasked with supervising these branches of discipline as medical specialties,” and, “The collegiums is formed by the professional organization and legitimized, fostered, and supervised by the Indonesian Medical Council.” They also requested that Article 29 paragraph (3) letter d of the Medical Practice Law be interpreted that the collegiums was for specialty doctors, while the collegiums for general physicians were the medical faculty and/or association of medical faculties with the highest accreditation. According to the Government, this is a form of norm addition and is not a constitutional issue of norms that is the authority of the Constitutional Court," he explained before the panel of justices led by the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Anwar Usman.

The same thing applies to another argument of the Petitioners that the enactment of Article 28 paragraph (1) of the Medical Practice Law raises problems in the practice of medical education activities related to the certification process. According to the Petitioners, there is a need for regulatory supervision by the Indonesian Doctors Association (IDI) and active involvement of the Indonesian Academy of Medicine (MKKI). The Government argued that the Petitioners petitum was a matter of norm constitutionality. 

In the petition filed by 36 individual citizens consisting of lecturers, retired lecturers, and professors in medicine, the Petitioners through attorney Muhammad Asrun had conveyed several revisions of the petition, especially on the difference from past judicial review of the Medical Practice Law. 

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. (Arif S./LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)