JurnalPost.com Court rulings should not end up as documents gathering dust in state archives. The true power of a ruling is tested when the parties ordered to execute it demonstrate genuine compliance. Without tangible implementation, a legal victory risks losing its meaning for the public.
This issue is the focus of Supreme Court (MA) Ruling Number 19 P/HUM/2026, as detailed in the copy of the ruling that serves as the basis for this article.
The case places the President of the Republic of Indonesia and the Minister of Health in a pivotal position to demonstrate their commitment to the rule of law, particularly in improving the governance of national health institutions.
A court ruling is not merely a matter of winning or losing. More importantly, it is an instrument to ensure that every government action, including the formation of regulations, remains within legal boundaries.
When a provision is declared to be in conflict with a higher regulation, the government has a responsibility to make adjustments in accordance with the court's order.
Ten Petitioners Fight for Legal Certainty
The petition for judicial review in case Number 19 P/HUM/2026 was filed by ten petitioners: Dr. dr. Mohammad Naser, Dr. dr. Prijo Sidipratomo, Prof. Dr. dr. Sudigdo Sastroasmoro, Prof. Dr. dr. Hardyanto Soebono, Prof. Dr. dr. Endang Sutedi, Prof. dr. Syakib Bakri, Dr. dr. Tedy Hartono, dr. Poedjo Hartono, dr. Bayu Apriadi, and Ns. Bambang Sumantri.
The petitioners challenged several provisions in Government Regulation Number 28 of 2024, Minister of Health Regulation Number 12 of 2024, Minister of Health Regulation Number 3 of 2025, and Minister of Health Decree Number HK.01.07/MENKES/775/2025.
The issues raised relate not only to administrative aspects but also to the status, authority, independence, and governance of several key institutions within Indonesia's health system.
The institutions under scrutiny in this case include the Indonesian Health College, the Indonesian Health Council, and the Professional Disciplinary Council.
The petitioners argue that the institutional arrangements must be aligned with Law Number 17 of 2023 concerning Health, including the constitutional interpretations provided by the Constitutional Court (MK).
The grounds used include Constitutional Court Rulings Number 111/PUU-XXII/2024 and Number 182/PUU-XXII/2024.
Both rulings are significant because they provide affirmation of several norms within the Health Law, particularly regarding the status and independence of health professional institutions.
Thus, the issue raised by the petitioners is not merely a difference of opinion regarding health policy, but also concerns the conformity of implementing regulations with higher laws.
Supreme Court Ruling and the Limits of Government Authority
In their petition, the petitioners requested that the Supreme Court declare the challenged provisions to be in conflict with higher legislation, devoid of binding legal force, and order their revocation.
Based on the operative part of the ruling that serves as the basis for this article, the Supreme Court granted the petition for judicial review.
The President, as Respondent I, was ordered to revoke specific provisions in Government Regulation Number 28 of 2024.
Meanwhile, the Minister of Health, as Respondent II, was ordered to revoke the provisions that were the object of the review in Minister of Health Regulation Number 12 of 2024, Minister of Health Regulation Number 3 of 2025, and Minister of Health Decree Number HK.01.07/MENKES/775/2025.
In the author's view, the substance of this ruling carries a significance far greater than a mere correction of government legal products.
The ruling demonstrates the importance of the principle of limited power. While the President and ministers have the authority to formulate policies and regulations according to their respective duties, this authority is not limitless.
Every regulation must be subject to the hierarchy of legislation and must heed the rulings of authorized judicial bodies.
In a state governed by law, power cannot be used as an excuse to maintain provisions that have been declared in conflict with higher law.
The 90-Day Deadline Is Not Just a Formality
The next issue is how the ruling is to be implemented.
Supreme Court Regulation Number 1 of 2011 concerning Judicial Review provides the basis for the consequences if the body or official that issued the regulation fails to fulfill their obligations.
Article 8 paragraph (2) stipulates that if, within 90 days after the Supreme Court ruling is sent to the state administrative body or official that issued the regulation, the obligation is not fulfilled, then the regulation in question shall, by law, have no legal force.
This provision shows that the implementation of a ruling is not merely a moral appeal but carries juridical consequences.
However, there is an important point that must not be overlooked when calculating this time limit.
The 90-day deadline does not automatically begin from the date the ruling is pronounced. The calculation is linked to the date the ruling is sent to the body or official that issued the regulation.
Therefore, certainty regarding the date the ruling was sent is crucial.
Without this information, conclusions regarding whether the government has exceeded the implementation deadline could lead to legal debates that could actually be avoided.
Furthermore, it must be understood that the consequence of losing legal force under this provision does not automatically mean that the official in question is subject to criminal sanctions.
Any other form of accountability must still be based on applicable legal provisions and provable facts.
Precision in understanding these legal consequences is important so that demands for compliance with the ruling remain objective and do not turn into accusations that exceed their legal basis.
The President and Minister of Health Must Demonstrate Concrete Steps
In the author's view, the most important step following a ruling is to ensure that its implementation can be known and monitored openly.
The President and the Minister of Health, in accordance with their respective authorities, need to follow up on the provisions ordered to be revoked.
This implementation must also consider derivative policies and regulations so as not to maintain substance that has been declared in conflict with the law.
The revocation of certain provisions does not always mean the entire regulation must be deleted. The scope of changes must still follow the operative part of the ruling precisely.
This is where caution in drafting replacement regulations is essential.
The government must not merely make editorial changes while retaining the substantive issues that formed the basis of the review through new provisions.
Regulatory adjustments should be an opportunity to improve health governance, clarify the boundaries of authority between institutions, and ensure that institutional independence remains protected.
Compliance with court rulings will also provide certainty for medical personnel, health workers, professional organizations, and the public who have an interest in the implementation of the national health system.
The Petitioners Must Not Stop Monitoring the Ruling
On the other hand, the petitioners have an interest in continuing to monitor the implementation of the ruling through legally available mechanisms.
The first step that can be taken is to request certainty regarding the date the copy of the ruling was sent to the President and the Minister of Health.
This information is important to determine the basis for calculating the implementation deadline.
Furthermore, the petitioners can submit an official letter to the relevant parties to request an explanation regarding the steps and schedule for the revocation of the provisions that are the object of the ruling.
Monitoring should also be carried out through official government publications, documentation of regulatory changes, and the legislation information system.
If there are indications that the court's order is not being implemented, the petitioners can document the situation, request clarification from the authorized agency, and consider available legal or oversight steps.
Such oversight is important because the success of a legal process is measured not only by obtaining a ruling but also by the realization of the ordered changes.
The Rule of Law Must Be Proven Through Compliance
Supreme Court Ruling Number 19 P/HUM/2026, as described in this article, should be a momentum to strengthen the governance of national health institutions.
Issues of institutional independence, division of authority, and the conformity of regulations with court rulings should not be viewed as mere administrative matters.
All of these concern legal certainty and the quality of governance.
For the President and the Minister of Health, the implementation of the ruling is an opportunity to show that the government respects the mechanisms of power oversight exercised by the judiciary.
Compliance with court rulings should not depend on whether the government agrees with all of the judge's considerations or not.
In a state governed by law, a ruling that has obtained legal force in accordance with the provisions must be respected and followed up.
Therefore, the author views the implementation of the ruling's operative part as an important test of the government's commitment to placing the law above the interests of short-term policies.
Ultimately, this issue is not just about the President, the Minister of Health, or the ten petitioners who filed for judicial review.
More broadly, this case concerns public trust in the state's ability to consistently uphold the principle of the rule of law.
This is because the authority of a state governed by law is not built solely through the regulations it creates, but must be proven through the government's willingness to comply with court rulings, including when those rulings correct its own policies.
Comments 0
Write a Comment Share your response