JurnalPost.com - Law Number 17 of 2023 concerning Health was introduced with a grand vision to simplify the health sector's regulatory landscape in Indonesia. Through an omnibus lawapproach, various provisions previously scattered across numerous laws have been consolidated into a single legal framework to ensure more effective, efficient, and legally certain implementation.
However, this spirit of simplification now faces a critical question: do all derivative policies truly clarify health governance, or do they potentially reintroduce the overlapping authority issues that the law sought to eliminate?
This question has emerged following the issuance of a Decree (SK) by the Chair of the Indonesian Health Council (KKI), which reportedly regulates the governance of reporting alleged ethical and disciplinary violations by medical and health personnel.
This policy warrants close scrutiny, especially since the professional disciplinary enforcement system already has a legal foundation and institutions specifically authorized to carry it out.
The MDP Already Has Authority, Why Is a New Mechanism Needed?
The Health Law, through Article 304, mandates the formation of a council to carry out the task of enforcing professional discipline for medical and health personnel.
This mandate is further elaborated in Government Regulation Number 28 of 2024 and Minister of Health Regulation Number 12 of 2024, which govern the position, duties, and working procedures of the Professional Disciplinary Council (MDP).
Under these provisions, the MDP is tasked with receiving and verifying complaints, investigating alleged disciplinary violations, determining whether a violation occurred, and issuing decisions regarding professional disciplinary sanctions.
Furthermore, Minister of Health Regulation Number 3 of 2025 explicitly stipulates that complaints regarding alleged professional disciplinary violations must be submitted to the MDP.
Thus, the core issue is not whether the KKI is permitted to issue administrative policies, but whether such policies remain within its scope of authority and avoid creating overlapping case-handling mechanisms.
If the new decision merely clarifies internal coordination, it can certainly be understood as part of an effort to improve services.
Conversely, if its substance establishes a new examination pathway with similar authority, the potential for dualism in case handling requires serious attention.
Imagine a patient wishing to report an alleged disciplinary violation by a medical professional. That patient requires certainty regarding which institution is authorized to receive and process their complaint.
Likewise, the medical or health personnel being reported have the right to assurance that the investigation process will follow proper procedures, without facing repeated disciplinary examinations for the same case through two different mechanisms.
Technical Rules Must Not Supersede the Law
In the Indonesian legal system, every administrative policy must be subordinate to the legislation that serves as its foundation.
Law Number 17 of 2023 provides the primary framework for professional disciplinary enforcement. This framework is then detailed through government and ministerial regulations.
Therefore, a head of an institution's decision should function to clarify the execution of duties according to granted authority, not to create new powers that contradict higher-level provisions.
This principle is essential to maintain administrative order and legal certainty.
Moreover, ethical violations and professional disciplinary violations are not always identical. They must be clearly distinguished based on the type of violation, the authority to investigate, and the resolution mechanism.
If a single decision regulates both issues, the boundaries of each institution's authority must be explained openly.
Without such clarity, rules intended to improve services risk creating confusion for both the public and health personnel.
Constitutional Court Rulings Must Be Considered
The issue of MDP authority was also part of the judicial review of the Health Law at the Constitutional Court.
In Decision Number 293/PUU-XXIV/2026, read on September 16, 2026, the Constitutional Court provided considerations regarding the existence of Article 304 and Article 308 of the Health Law.
The Court viewed the professional disciplinary enforcement mechanism and the issuance of recommendations by the MDP as part of the legal protection instruments in health services.
This ruling demonstrates that the position and function of the MDP have a legal basis that cannot simply be sidelined by administrative policy.
Therefore, any new regulation related to reporting or disciplinary examination must consider the position of the MDP as stipulated by law.
If institutional improvements are indeed necessary, such changes must be pursued through appropriate legal mechanisms.
The Public Has the Right to Know the Basis for the Decree
Another equally important question concerns the background behind the issuance of the KKI Chair's decree.
What concrete problems is it intended to solve? Are there weaknesses in the complaint system currently run by the MDP? Or was the policy issued to respond to the rise in ethical violation cases, including allegations of sexual harassment and unprofessional behavior by health personnel?
These questions require a transparent explanation.
The KKI needs to disclose the basis for its considerations and the substance of the policy so that the public can understand its purpose and impact.
The involvement of the MDP, professional organizations, colleges, and other stakeholders in the drafting process is also essential to ensure the policy does not create new problems.
Transparency is not merely an administrative matter. In health governance, openness is the foundation for maintaining public trust in institutions responsible for protecting patients while ensuring the professionalism of health personnel.
Without an adequate explanation, room for speculation regarding potential jurisdictional overlap will remain open.
The Spirit of the Omnibus Law Must Not Remain on Paper
One of the main goals of the omnibus law approach is to simplify scattered regulations and reduce the potential for conflict between provisions.
However, simplification at the legislative level will not yield optimal benefits if its implementation creates increasingly complex administrative procedures.
The public does not need multiple, confusing reporting channels. They need a system that is easily accessible, transparent, and provides certainty regarding who is authorized to process reports.
Similarly, medical and health personnel need an examination mechanism that is objective, independent, and provides protection for their professional rights.
In this context, three steps should be considered.
First, the KKI needs to provide an open explanation regarding the legal basis, substance, and purpose of the decree related to reporting ethical and professional disciplinary violations.
Second, the KKI, MDP, and the Ministry of Health must ensure an integrated complaint flow to prevent process duplication or jurisdictional ambiguity.
Third, every administrative policy must be evaluated to ensure it remains aligned with Law Number 17 of 2023 and its implementing regulations.
If, in its development, there is a view that the KKI is more appropriate to carry out disciplinary enforcement functions directly because it is considered more competent, independent, and objective, such an idea can certainly be debated openly.
However, the change or abolition of the MDP cannot be done solely through a Minister of Health decision as long as the existence of the disciplinary enforcement council is mandated by law.
Fundamental changes to the structure of authority must be carried out through regulatory adjustments in accordance with the prevailing legal hierarchy.
Ultimately, this issue should not become a competition for authority between institutions.
What is far more important is how the state presents a system of ethical and professional disciplinary enforcement that is fair, simple, and capable of providing balanced protection to both patients and health personnel.
One law should present one clear legal system, not open the door to two conflicting mechanisms of authority.
If the spirit of regulatory simplification is indeed the foundation of national health reform, its consistency must be visible even in the most technical administrative decisions.
Because legal certainty is determined not only by how well a law is drafted, but also by how consistently all institutions implement it.
Author: Tedy Hartono
This article is the author's personal opinion. The views and arguments expressed are the responsibility of the author.
Comments 0
Write a Comment Share your response