Constitutional Court Ruling Signals Direction for Medical Profession Governance Reform
Jakarta — Coordinating Minister for Law, Human Rights, Immigration and Corrections Yusril Ihza Mahendra has characterised two important Constitutional Court (MK) decisions regarding the Health Law as a direction for constitutional correction in the governance of the medical profession in Indonesia.
According to him, these decisions not only resolve normative disputes but also provide guidance for state policymaking to maintain balance between the state’s role and professional independence.
“A Constitutional Court decision is not merely a judicial decision that resolves normative disputes, but rather a constitutional interpretation that is binding and serves as guidance for state policymakers,” Yusril stated at a National Networking Forum in Jakarta on Thursday.
He assessed that Constitutional Court Decision Number 111/PUU-XXII/2024 and Constitutional Court Decision Number 182/PUU-XXII/2024 provide important direction for the future of medical education and the governance of the medical profession.
The main thrust of Constitutional Court Decision Number 111/PUU-XXII/2024 is a confirmation concerning the independence of collegia within the organisational structure of medical and health professions. Meanwhile, Constitutional Court Decision Number 182/PUU-XXII/2024 contains the strengthening of collegia independence and an affirmation of the role of professional organisations in Indonesia’s health ecosystem.
Yusril noted that the dynamics of health profession regulation have so far shown a tug-of-war between professional organisations and the government. Previously, professional organisations held a very dominant role in determining educational standards, competencies and mechanisms for professional discipline.
However, through Law Number 17 of 2023 on Health, the government has sought to carry out correction by strengthening the state’s role in regulating the health system. The Coordinating Minister conveyed that the Constitutional Court recognised that such correction efforts could create new imbalances if state authority became too dominant.
Therefore, the Constitutional Court emphasised the importance of maintaining balance between state governance and professional independence. The court fundamentally wished to assert that correcting professional organisation dominance should not be replaced by state dominance.
“What is needed is a new balance in institutional governance,” he said.
In its decision, the court also placed emphasis on three important aspects of the medical profession system: the status of collegia as a scientific body safeguarding competency standards, ethics and professional discipline mechanisms based on professional community peer review, and regulation that does not create space for administrative intervention in scientific independence.
He called on all stakeholders — government, academia and professional organisations — to use the Constitutional Court decision as a momentum to improve the design of medical profession governance constitutionally whilst preserving the quality of health services and patient safety.