MK Rejects Formal Test of Health Law, 4 Judges Dissenting Opinion

The Constitutional Court (MK) rejected the formal review of Law Number 17 of 2023 concerning Health because it had no legal grounds. Nevertheless, there were 4 MK judges who expressed dissenting opinions or differences of opinion.
Viewed by detikcom , Thursday (29/2/2024) this decision is contained in Number 130/PUU-XXI/2023. This formal test was proposed by five professional organizations, including the Executive Board of the Indonesian Doctors Association (PB IDI), the Indonesian Dentists Association (PDGI), the Indonesian National Nurses Association (PPNI), IBI (Indonesian Midwives Association), and IAI (Indonesian Pharmacists Association). .

“To judge, reject the petitioners’ application in its entirety,” said the MK in the decision read out, Thursday (29/2/2024).

“Considering the Petitioners’ argument which states that Law 17/2023 is formally flawed because its planning, discussion and formation did not meet the formal requirements for meaningful community involvement and participation and there were actions to inhibit participation in the discussion of the Health Bill which harmed democracy. constitutional,” said IDI et al.’s request.

In its considerations, the MK said that since Constitutional Court Decision Number 91/PUU-XVIII/2020 concerning Formal Review of Law Number 11 of 2020 concerning Job Creation (UU Ciptaker), which was pronounced in a plenary session open to the public on 25 November 2021, the MK granted request for formal review of a law.

According to the Constitutional Court, one of the considerations is that community participation in the process of forming the Ciptaker Law was assessed by the court as not providing maximum space for participation by the community.

“The Court in its a quo decision emphasized that more meaningful community participation must fulfill at least three prerequisites, namely: first, the right to have one’s opinion heard (right to be heard); second, the right to have one’s opinion considered (right to be considered); and third , the right to receive an explanation or answer to the opinion given (right to be explained). Public participation is primarily intended for groups of people who are directly affected or have concerns about the draft law being discussed (see Sub-paragraph [3.17 .8] page 393, Constitutional Court Decision Number 91/PUU-XVIII/2020),” said the MK.

According to the Constitutional Court, it recommends that legislators encourage the development of an information system for the formation of electronic (online) legal regulations in order to fulfill the principle of meaningful participation.

“Thus, the arguments of the Petitioners’ petition regarding Law 17/2023 are formally flawed because on a juridical basis they do not take into account the Court’s decisions in the Academic Text and Health Bill Text, so that not fulfilling the provisions of the law is unreasonable according to law,” said the MK .

Meanwhile, four judges expressed dissenting opinions. The four judges are Suhartoyo, Saldi Isra, Enny Nurbaningsih and Ridwan Mansyur.

Categories:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *