Legal counsel Didi Cahyadi Ningrat representing the Petitioner at the judicial review hearing of Article 21 of Law No. 36 of 2014 on Health Workers for case No. 36/PUU-XIX/2021 virtually, Monday (11/1/2021). Photo by Humas MK/Bayu.

---

Monday, November 1, 2021 | 21:53 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) held a material judicial review hearing of the provision on the competency assessment of medical students in Article 21 of Law No. 36 of 2014 on Health Workers for case No. 56/PUU-XIX/2021 on Monday, November 1, 2021. The petition was filed by the Association of Indonesian Private Medical Schools (HPTKES Indonesia).

At the virtual hearing, legal counsel Didi Cahyadi Ningrat argued on behalf of the Petitioner that the Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology (Kemendikbudristek) had misinterpreted Article 21 of the Health Workers Law, which lead to the violation of the Petitioner’s constitutional rights.

Kemendikbudristek issued the Decree of the Minister of Education and Culture No. 755/P/2020 on August 20, 2020, which entered into force on May 4, 2020 as a derivative of Permendikbud (Regulation of Minister of Education and Culture) No. 2 of 2020 on the Procedure for Implementing Student Competency Assessment in the Health Sector, which is a derivative of Article 21 of the Health Workers Law. With the Permendikbud in place, currently the graduation of medical students is determined through a competency assessment by the National Health Students Competency Board.

“The National Health Students Competency Board, which was founded thanks to Article 6 paragraph (1) of Permendikbud No. 2 of 2020 has in fact repeated the misinterpretation of Permenristekdikti, [which had led to the founding of] a previous national board that had been revoked and been declared illegitimate. The founding of a new board that took over the authority of universities in determining the graduation of medical students. Moreover, the competency assessment of students of vocational and professional education had not been appropriate and not meeting quality standards,” Didi said before the justice panel chaired by Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh.

Restricting Students’ Career

Didi added that before said article was in force, not all medical students were mandated to pass the competency assessment. Only those seeking to work as health workers were; those who only wished to finish their studies were not.

“The fact is that many graduates of vocational education do not go on to work as health workers. There are many options in the job market after students finish their studies. They might also continue pursuing a higher level of education,” Didi said.

The Petitioner believes that the mandatory competency certification to finish studies restricts students to move up on the following step, be it a higher level of studies or work.

In addition, the Petitioner asserted, the misinterpretation of the article is indicated by the lack of universities’ involvement in the competency assessment. In other words, universities do not have any authority on the assessment process.

“The universities merely act as ‘stampers’ of the unilateral competency assessment process by the Respondent (Kemendikbudristek). If this continues, it will further add to the chaos in higher health education. In fact, the Petitioner as a tertiary institution can be sued by students who have been harmed by the ambiguity, confusion, and uncertainty about this UKOMNAS system and method,” Didi said.

Therefore, in the petitum, the Petitioner requested that the Court declare Article 21 of the Health Workers Law unconstitutional insofar as interpreted as ‘based on Permendikbud No. 2 of 2020’ and ‘the universities does not play a role in determining the students’ graduation in the competency assessment.’

“[The Petitioner requested that the Court] declare Article 21 of Law No. 36 of 2014 unconstitutional insofar as interpreted as ‘the competency assessment is carried out only by the committee or by any non-university institution under any name;’ declare Article 21 of Law No. 36 of 2014 unconstitutional insofar as interpreted as ‘the competency assessment is carried out by eliminating the universities’ involvement and the competency assessment certificate is not issued by universities,’” Didi stressed.

Justices’ Advice

In response, Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat said that any existing interpretation of a law is not the Constitutional Court’s jurisdiction.

“[The Court] is not the place for reviewing interpretation. If [the intention is] to review [the constitutionality of] Article 21 of Law No. 36 of 2014, you must elaborate its contradiction to Articles 1, 27, and 28D [of the 1945 Constitution],” he said. He also requested that the Petitioner elaborate on their constitutional loss in the legal standing.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh recommended that the Petitioner elaborate on their identity and revise the petition’s format.

Before the hearing was concluded, the panel gave the Petitioner 14 workdays to revise the petition, which must be submitted by November 15, 2021.

Writer        : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Fitri Yuliana
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 11/02/2021 10:47 WIB

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian versions, the Indonesian version will prevail.

---