The Petitioners’ legal counsel Viktor Santoso Tandiasa explaining the revisions to the petition at the judicial review hearing of Law No. 29 of 2004 on Medical Practice, Tuesday (3/14/2023). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

Tuesday, March 14, 2023 | 14:30 WIB

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held another judicial review hearing of Law No. 29 of 2004 on Medical Practice on Tuesday, March 14, 2023 in the panel courtroom. The petition No. 21/PUU-XXI/2023 was filed by surgeons Gede Eka Rusdi Antara and Made Adhi Keswara. At this second hearing, the Petitioners’ legal counsel Viktor Santoso Tandiasa conveyed the revisions to the petition, such as the addition of I Gede Sutawan, a doctor, to the petitioners. The background to the petition was also completed by adding the word “recommendation” in order to give leniency to the reported, who are still being examined by the Indonesian Medical Disciplinary Board (MKDKI).

“The provisions of Article 69 paragraph (1) of the Medical Practice Law, especially the phrase ‘shall be binding for dentists and the Indonesian Medical Council,’ not automatically binds [the Indonesian Medical Council (KKI)], so the KKI cannot correct the MKDKI’s results,” Tandiasa said before Constitutional Justices Suhartoyo (panel chair), Wahiduddin Adams, and Saldi Isra.

Also read: Provision on MKDKI’s Examination Challenged

At the preliminary hearing on Wednesday, March 1, the Petitioners asserted they put emphasis on their legal standing and their argument that the petition was not ne bis in idem. The article petitioned is Article 69 paragraph (1) of the Medical Practice Law, especially the phrase ‘shall be binding for dentists and the Indonesian Medical Council,’ which the Petitioners believe is against Article 1 paragraph (3), Article 28D paragraph (1), Article 28G of the 1945 Constitution.

Petitioner I was reported by the MKDKI, and in undergoing the MKDKI’s examination, Petitioners I and II experienced a process that was not transparent and unfair, during which their constitutional rights were often violated. The MKDKI formed a disciplinary council (MPD), which consists of legal scholars, when its function was to examine disciplinary violations by doctors during practice. The Petitioners had been counseled but the counsel could not provide any defense.

The Petitioners’ experts and witnesses were examined by the MPD without the Petitioners’ in attendance, so they did not know what was asked. Therefore, the Petitioners requested that the Medical Practice Law be declared in violation of Article 1 paragraph (3) and Article 28 paragraph (1) if the phrase “shall be binding for doctors, dentists, and the Indonesian Medical Council” is not interpreted as a recommendation and cannot be used as a basis to file a civil or criminal lawsuit. They also asserted that the article had led to legal uncertainty since it positions the Indonesian Medical Council (KKI) under the MKDKI because the MKDKI’s decisions directly binds the KKI when its decisions on punishments shall be recommendations according to Article 69 paragraph (3). Therefore, the Petitioners requested that the a quo article be declared unconstitutional.

Author       : Sri Pujianti
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Fitri Yuliana
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 3/15/2023 08:10 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.

---