Petitioner Judilherry Justam with legal counsel Muhammad Asrun listening to the ruling of the judicial review of Law Number 29 of 2004 on Medical Practice on Tuesday (21/5) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court reject the entire judicial review petition of Law Number 29 of 2004 on Medical Practice. The verdict was pronounced by Chief Justice Anwar Usman in the hearing of Decision No. 80/PUU-XVI/2018 on Tuesday (21/5/2019) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court.

The petition was filed 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. 

Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto, reading the legal considerations, said that the petition, which basically argued about the phrase "formed by professional organizations" in Article 1 number 13 of the Medical Practice Law, the Court is of the opinion that it is understood that the Indonesian Medical Council (KKI) is an autonomous body responsible to the President, which has duties as stated in Article 7 and Article 8 of the Medical Practice Law. Meanwhile, Justice Aswanto added, the position of the academy of medicine is stated in the statute/bylaws of the Indonesian Doctors Association (IDI) as is in the Constitutional Court Decision Number 10/PUU-XV/2017. Based on these considerations, it was clear to the Court that KKI with and the medical academy have different roles in the medical profession organization.

"Therefore, it is not right that the Petitioners request that the Court declare the phrase "the medical academy is formed by the professional organizations" contrary to the 1945 Constitution because it would require the Court to intervene in Indonesian medical organizations in relation to the issue of a norm," Justice Aswanto explained.

Implementation of Training

Regarding the Petitioners\' argument regarding Article 28 paragraph (1) of the Medical Practice Law, according to the Court, what needs to be emphasized in the article is, among others, that "... sustainable medical or dental education and training organized by professional organizations and other institutions accredited by a professional organization." As stated in the provision, Justice Aswanto explained, it is clear that the organizers of sustainable medical or dental training is IDI. "So the provision does not cause legal uncertainty as argued by the Petitioners," he explained.

With regard to the petition that the article be clearly interpreted in terms of the implementation of the recertification process and the development program for Continuing Professional Education (P2KB) must have the active involvement of the Indonesian Academy of Medicine (MKKI), which is an element of the IDI and also supervision by the Government and KKI as a regulator. According to the Court, this is not a constitutionality issue. It is only the Petitioners\' objections to the implementation of norms in the field because in recertification and the development program for P2KB, MKKI is not actively involved as an IDI element that has authority in education and supervision from the Government and KKI as a regulator. "Based on these considerations, the argument of the Petitioners that reviewed Article 28 paragraph (1) of Law 29/2004 against Article 28C paragraph (2) and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution is legally groundless," said Justice Aswanto.