The Petitioner (right) and her counsel at the ruling hearing for the judicial review of Law No. 17 of 2023 on Health for case No. 175/PUU-XXIII/2025, Thursday (10/30/2025). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) ruled that the material 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 was inadmissible. The Court found that the petition in case No. 175/PUU-XXIII/2025, filed by dr. Ratna Setia Asih, was obscure because it failed to clearly describe the contradiction between the provision being challenged and the constitutional articles used as the basis for review.

Constitutional Justice Arsul Sani stated that, in the section concerning legal standing, the Petitioner merely described a concrete case and the losses she allegedly suffered, without explaining the causal relationship between the enforcement of the provision being challenged and the alleged violation of the Petitioner’s constitutional rights. Furthermore, in the section regarding the Court’s authority, the Petitioner presented matters that are irregular in a petition for judicial review submitted to the Constitutional Court.

“Similarly, […] the Court finds that the formulation of the Petitioner’s petitums is unclear because it merely requests the Court to insert a phrase as proposed by the Petitioner, without stating that the provision a quo contradicts the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia,” said Justice Arsul while delivering the Court’s legal considerations in Decision No. 175/PUU-XXIII/2025 on Thursday, October 30, 2025 in the plenary courtroom.

Also read:

Doctor Requests Medical Council Recommendations Be Subject to Review

Doctor Revises Petition on Medical Council Recommendations

The petition was submitted because the Petitioner 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: 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 contended that the relevant provision violated 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, her petitums, the Petitioner requested 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.”

Track case No. 175/PUU-XXIII/2025

Read the decision in full here.

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.

---