The Petitioner (right) and her counsel at the second hearing for the judicial review of Law No. 17 of 2023 on Health for case No. 175/PUU-XXIII/2025, Thursday (10/23/2025). Photo by MKRI/Panji.
JAKARTA (MKRI) — Ratna Setia Asih, a doctor, has revised her judicial review petition 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 and conveyed it before the Constitutional Court (MK). She argued that she had suffered constitutional impairment due to the enforcement of the article, as a recommendation from the Professional Disciplinary Council (MDP) of the Indonesian Medical Council (MDP KKI) had been used by the Special Criminal Investigations Directorate of the Bangka Belitung Islands Regional Police to name her a suspect.
“The absolute authority of the recommendations issued by the MDP KKI has resulted in persistent criminalization within the medical collegium, and the Petitioner has personally experienced this injustice and the indifference of the MDP KKI after leading the Petitioner into such a circumstance,” said legal counsel Hangga Oktafandany at the petition revision hearing for No. 175/PUU-XXIII/2025 on Thursday, October 23, 2025.
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: 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, if the Court grants the petitum, the likelihood of criminalization would be greatly reduced because there would be an opportunity for judicial review. She also believes that, if the petition a quo is granted, extortion such as the one she experienced—being asked to pay a settlement of IDR 2.8 billion—would no longer occur. She hopes that in the future, the MDP recommendations will no longer be used as tools to pressure members of the medical collegium who wish to pursue further specialist or subspecialist education.
“All of this will be realized if the panel of constitutional justices believes that there must be equality before the law between the MDP KKI and members of the medical collegium,” said Hangga.
Also read: Doctor Requests Medical Council Recommendations Be Subject to Review
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 she had violated professional standards, and that her case should be forwarded to the investigator at the Special Criminal Investigations Directorate of the Bangka Belitung Islands Regional Police for investigation. The recommendation was submitted 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.
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.
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.
Track case No. 175/PUU-XXIII/2025
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.
Thursday, October 23, 2025 | 16:43 WIB 227