Follow-up judicial review hearing of the Medical Practice Law on Monday (14/1) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The Constitutional Court once again held the judicial review hearing of Article 1 number 12 of Law Number 29 of 2004 on Medical Practice (Medical Practice Law) on Monday (1/14/2019) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. However, in the session scheduled to hear the statement of the expert for the President/Government, the Ministry of Health through a letter stated that he was not able to present the expert. 

"Therefore, the hearing is postponed until Monday, January 28, 2019 at 11.00 a.m. And if they still cannot provide information, they are considered not using their right, or they may also provide a written statement," explained Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Anwar Usman who presided over the session in the presence of the other eight constitutional justices. 

The case registered as No. 80/PUU-XVI/2018 was requested by 36 individual citizens consisting of lecturers, retired lecturers, and professors in the field of medicine. The Petitioners claimed 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 could potentially harm the constitutional rights of the Petitioners. The Petitioners had previously said that Article 1 number 12 of the law on the definition of the phrase "Indonesian Doctors Association" 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)