Accompanied by legal counsel, the Petitioners delivering the petition revision in the judicial review hearing of Law No. 17 of 2023 on Health (Health Law) at the Panel Courtroom, Monday (30/12). Photo by MKRI/Panji/=.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) – The Constitutional Court held another hearing on the petition submitted by M. Nasser, Sudigdo Sastroasmoro, and 18 other petitioners who work, among others, as doctors, health law observers/experts, and professional organization activists on Monday, December 30, 2024. The Petitioners submitted a review of Article 311 paragraph (1), Article 268 paragraph (2), Article 269, Article 270, Article 203 paragraph (1), Article 220 paragraph (2), Article 263 paragraph (5), and Article 291 paragraph (2) of Law No. 17 of 2023 on Health (Health Law). According to the Petitioners, these articles violate Article 28C, Article 28D, and Article 28H of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.

The second hearing agenda was to examine the petition revision of Case No. 171/PUU-XXII/2024. Legal counsel M. Djunaedi, Vera Dumonda Silitonga, and Moh. Soleh delivered points of argument that strengthened the petition. The Petitioners asserted that Article 203 paragraph (1) and Article 220 paragraph (2) of the Health Law exhibit the arbitrariness of government officials in the health field. If not corrected, this will affect national policy, harming society and public health security. Therefore, the articles breach the citizens’ constitutional rights guaranteed by Article 28C, Article 28D, and Article 28H of the 1945 Constitution.

Vera added that the petition against Article 269 and Article 270 of the Health Law incited dilemmas among the Petitioners, who questioned the lawmakers' intentions and objectives. According to the Petitioners, the lawmakers have trumped the Constitutional Court’s decision without giving meaningful constitutional reasoning.

“The articles have been clearly and firmly decided on the Constitutional Court’s Decision No. 82/PUU-XIII/2015 with accurate constitutional reasoning stating that medical workers council should be separated from other health workers' councils. We consider that there are marginalized citizens' constitutional rights due to the enactment of the articles. Through the material judicial review of Article 268 paragraph (2), Article 269, Article 270 of the Health Law, we wish the Honorable Panel of Justices to grant the petitum as mentioned, to declare Articles 269 and 270 of the Health Law contradict the 1945 Constitution so that it does not have legally binding power, as long as it is not interpreted as the existence of medical workers and health workers are under the same council,” Vera stated.

Vera added that to strengthen the legal arguments on the importance of a single professional organization to keep the medical professions in various aspects in carrying out their professional rules, such as collegium to be free of politics, the Petitioners provided a comparison from three countries: the United Kingdom, Germany, and Canada. All these countries implemented the same policy on professional independence and single professional organization policy.

Vera continued that the existence of constitutional norms as decided by the Constitutional Court and rephrasing them into different sentences in obvious or vague manners, which are entirely done discreetly and privately, is not based on or supported by sociological or physiological studies in an academic paper; it is not even mentioned in the academic paper. According to the Petitioner, these norms are related to the cohesion between professions and the potential of different codes of ethics and professional standards and create the potential for abuse of clinical authorities, which, in the end, will affect the level of public health, including patient safety.

“It is interpreted differently by those who prioritize financial thought over patient safety and improvement of public health. In addition, Article 311 paragraph (1) of the Health Law contradicts the Constitutional Court’s Decision No. 10/PUU-XV/2017 which decides on a single medical professional organization,” Vera explained.

Also read: Doctors and Activists Question the Autonomy of Medical Profession and Health Workers

In the preliminary hearing on Monday, December 16, 2024, The Petitioners questioned the health council stipulated in Article 268 paragraph (2) of the Health Law, specifically on the position of the Council Law through the Minister, and Article 269 and Article 270 of the Health Law regarding the unification of medical and health workers. The Petitioners mentioned that, in fact, and based on the needs, the council shall regulate many aspects, not only the registration of doctors/dentists and other health workers but also the development of medicine technology under various laws and regulations. According to the Petitioners, the unification of the Medical Council and Health Workers Council, as stipulated in Article 269 and Article 270 of the Health Law, complicates the supervision scope of doctors'/dentists' practices. It is due to the disparity in authority, competence, and independence between the medical profession and health workers.

Subsequently, the Petitioners provided legal reasonings for the “exceeding authority or unauthorized or arbitrary actions” by the minister who regulates government affairs in the health field. Doctor's or dentist's certificates are issued by the Faculty of Medicine after they undertake a series of educational programs and are declared to have passed the professional examination and acquired a doctor’s certificate, which also serves as a professional certificate. To achieve competence standards as a doctor, it is mandatory to take the Competence Examination held by educational institutions cooperating with relevant Collegium to acquire a Competence Certificate. To maintain the knowledge standards up-to-date, the competence certificate must be renewed every five years to encourage doctors to follow the latest medical developments. Therefore, medical professionals' competence standards regulation that do not meet the proportion of propriety under the state’s regulation may pose risks to the citizens who receive health service, so it may violate Article 28D and Article 28H paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

The Petitioners further stated that the professional standards are based on a professional certificate, which is only issued by a selected team through a rigorous academic selection process. Hence, the involvement of the Professional Collegium and Council may serve as the middle way so that the government bureaucracy does not interfere too much in the affairs of professional professionalism. Too much intervention by the minister on matters related to the core profession violates Article 28C of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. In fact, medical education is also related to professional education, as well as knowledge and skills, which are objectively and subjectively under the scope of the Ministry of Higher Education. If another ministry interferes or invades this affair, it needs to be prevented because it exceeds or beyond its authority.

Author: Sri Pujianti.

Editor: Nur R.

PR: Raisa Ayuditha Marsaulina.
Translator: Rizky Kurnia Chaesario

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.

---