Andalas University law students revising their petition at a petition revision hearing for the judicial review of the Health Law, held online, Thursday (1/8/2026). Photo by MKRI/IlhamWM.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — Students of the Faculty of Law of Universitas Andalas, acting as Petitioners in Case No. 242/PUU-XXIII/2025, submitted revisions to their petition for a material judicial review of Article 188 paragraphs (3) and (4) of Law No. 17 of 2023 on Health (the Health Law) to the Constitutional Court. The Petitioners stated that they had refined each Petitioner's identity, legal standing, and the posita, or grounds, of the petition.

“With regard to the posita, we have rearranged them in accordance with the constitutional benchmarks. They are now grouped and elaborated one by one, separately, along with the constitutional provisions serving as the basis for reviewing each contested article,” said Naila Ammara during the petition revision hearing on Thursday (1/8/2026) at the Constitutional Court courtroom in Jakarta, which was conducted online.

In addition, the Petitioners also amended their petitum. Through their petitum, they request the Court to declare Article 188 paragraph (3) of the Health Law unconstitutional and conditionally not legally binding insofar as the phrase “Hospitals may provide research-based services” is not interpreted to apply solely in public health emergencies that threaten the welfare of individuals or the wider community.

The Petitioners further ask the Court to declare Article 188 paragraph (4) of the Health Law unconstitutional and conditionally not legally binding insofar as the phrase “responsible” in the provision of research-based services is not interpreted as actions that: (a) prioritize the interests of research subjects above those of science or society; (b) may only be carried out when potential risks can be anticipated and minimized; (c) require informed consent from research subjects without coercion; and (d) mandate compensation mechanisms for injuries or losses arising from the research.

Also read: Andalas University Law Students Challenge Health Law

The petition was filed by eleven students of the Faculty of Law of Universitas Andalas. In addition to Naila Ammara, the other Petitioners are Fanesa Aulia, Ridho Fadilla Razaq, Donal Syafriadi, Salsa Azza Nabilla, Indah Fajar Lestari, Farasat Ahmad, Ramayana Putri, Beni Usri Gumay, Lukman Nul Hakim, and Zacky Damiansya Monandar.

The Petitioners argue that the contested provisions lack clear standards or parameters, thereby creating room for multiple interpretations that could result in violations of the right to legal protection and certainty in the field of health. Article 188 paragraph (3) of the Health Law states, “In conducting research as referred to in paragraph (2), hospitals may provide research-based services.” According to the Petitioners, the article fails to specify the parameters, limitations, or conditions under which such services may be performed.

The ambiguity of the word “may,” they contend, creates interpretative uncertainty that allows research-based services to be conducted under any circumstances, including when patients are not in emergency conditions or have not given specific consent. This uncertainty, they argue, threatens the Petitioners’ right to fair legal certainty as guaranteed under Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

Furthermore, Article 188, paragraph (4), of the Health Law provides that hospitals that implement research-based services through innovations developed by medical personnel and/or health workers must be granted support and autonomous freedom by the central and regional governments, in accordance with their respective authorities. The Petitioners maintain that the provision’s reference to services being carried out “responsibly” does not set out criteria, mechanisms, ethical standards, oversight, or forms of legal accountability for services that pose risks or cause harm to patients.

This normative vacuum, according to the Petitioners, potentially endangers their right to life and to defend their lives as guaranteed under Article 28A of the 1945 Constitution, as well as their right to obtain safe and adequate health services that ensure physical and mental well-being as stipulated in Article 28H paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. As individuals who may realistically receive medical treatment in hospitals, the Petitioners argue that the unclear norms could directly result in constitutional harm, including uncertainty over their status as patients or research subjects, potential risks to bodily safety, and the absence of guaranteed legal protection in the event of harm.

Author : Mimi Kartika
Editor : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR : Adriana Airlia Yusrin
Translator : Yuanna Sisilia

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.

 

---