The Petitioner and her legal counsel at the preliminary hearing for the judicial review of Law No. 17 of 2023 on Health for case No. 175/PUU-XXIII/2025, Friday (10/10/2025). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — Ratna Setia Asih, a doctor, has filed a petition for judicial review of Article 307, insofar as the phrase “Decision of the Council” of Law No. 17 of 2023 on Health against Article 27 paragraph (1) and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution before the Constitutional Court (MK). The petition was submitted because she had received a recommendation from the Professional Disciplinary Council (MDP) of the Indonesian Medical Council (MDP KKI), which essentially stated that dr. Ratna Setia Asih, Sp.A., M.Kes. had violated professional standards and that her case should be forwarded for investigation.

“There is no legal avenue to assess the validity of the recommendation of the Council through review or any other legal remedy,” said the Petitioner’s legal counsel Hangga Oktafandany at the preliminary hearing for Case No. 175/PUU-XXIII/2025 on Friday, October 10, 2025.

The MDP KKI’s recommendation letter was submitted to the investigator at the Special Criminal Investigations Directorate of the Bangka Belitung Islands Regional Police upon the investigator’s request, in accordance with Article 308 of the Health Law, and was followed by the issuance of a suspect determination letter in the Petitioner’s name. Meanwhile, Article 307 provides: “The decision of the Council as referred to in Article 304 may be subject to reconsideration by the Minister in the event that: a. new evidence is discovered; b. there is an error in the application of disciplinary sanctions; or c. there is an alleged conflict of interest between the examiner and the examinee.”

According to the Petitioner, the singular object in the norm implies that only “the decision of the council” may be subject to review, whereas “the recommendation of the council” directed at the Petitioner may not. The Petitioner believes this exception has limited her right to challenge the validity of the recommendation specifically addressed to her for possible error as contemplated in Article 307 of the Health Law.

The recommendation directed at the Petitioner was not accompanied by an investigation report (BAP) for signature, was not preceded by a professional standard violation hearing, was not followed by a formal decision of the council, and the Petitioner was not provided with a copy of the said recommendation. The recommendation assigned two legal statuses to the Petitioner, namely that she was found to have violated professional standards and that her case was forwarded for investigation, which subsequently resulted in her being named a suspect.

The Petitioner questioned why the recommendation mentioned only her name for referral to investigation, whereas seven other doctors were neither recommended for referral nor for non-referral. She argued that the MDP KKI had committed discrimination. She further questioned the grounds for concluding that she had violated professional standards, given that the relevant standards had not yet been formulated by the MDP KKI and approved by the Minister.

The Petitioner stated that this issue had harmed her professional performance, disturbed her peace of mind, and curtailed her liberty. Even her extended family, she said, has felt ashamed to socialize, as they have been stigmatized by media reports, social media discussions, and gossip in her workplace and community arising from the MDP KKI’s recommendation, which cannot be corrected.

Although the Petitioner was not detained by investigators, she was required to report twice weekly, now reduced to once a week. Nevertheless, according to her, regardless of the reporting frequency, this criminalization continues to deprive her of freedom. She wishes to continue her subspecialty education, but the two legal statuses attached to her will inevitably be reviewed by the competent authorities, thereby hindering her ability to pursue further education. The Petitioner contends that the relevant provision violates her constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 27 paragraph (1) and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, which ensure that all Indonesian citizens are equal before the law and entitled to recognition, guarantees, protection, and fair legal certainty as well as equal treatment before the law.

Therefore, in her petition, the Petitioner requests the Court to declare that Article 307 of the Health Law insofar as the phrase “decision of the council” inconsistent with Article 27 paragraph (1) and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, and to add the phrase “and/or recommendation of the council,” so that the provision would read: “The decision of the council and/or recommendation of the council as referred to in Article 304 may be subject to reconsideration by the Minister in the event that…”

The case was heard by a panel of justices chaired by Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat, with Constitutional Justices Anwar Usman and Enny Nurbaningsih as members. According to Justice Enny, the Petitioner has not yet explained the argumentation regarding the conflict between the challenged provision and the constitutional provisions serving as the basis for review.

“As I read here, the issue concerns the decision of the council, and the alleged conflict is with Article 27 paragraph (1), but it is not clearly described what the conflict actually is. The same applies to Article 28D paragraph (1) of the Constitution. All of that must be elaborated. Is there really a constitutional problem there? You must build a very strong argument leading to the petitum,” she said.

Before adjourning the session, Justice Arief announced that the Petitioner would have 14 days to revise the petition, which must be submitted to the Court no later than Thursday, October 23 at 12:00 WIB.

Author       : Mimi Kartika
Editor        : N. Rosi
PR            : Raisa Ayuditha Marsaulina
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

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.

---