JurnalPost.com Supreme Court (MA) Ruling Number 19 P/HUM/2026 should not be viewed merely as a legal victory for the petitioners. More importantly, this ruling must serve as a turning point in reforming national health institutional governance, particularly regarding the independence, legitimacy, and accountability of institutions that play a strategic role in regulating health professions.
The issue at hand is not simply about who has the right to hold office or control an institution. The fundamental issue is how the state ensures that every health institution is formed, staffed, and exercises its authority based on sound legal principles.
In this case, 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 challenged provisions relate to the status, authority, independence, and the mechanisms for the formation and appointment of members of the Collegiums, the Indonesian Health Council (KKI), and the Professional Disciplinary Council (MDP).
The petition also relates to provisions in Law Number 17 of 2023 concerning Health, as well as Constitutional Court Rulings Number 111/PUU-XXII/2024 and Number 182/PUU-XXII/2024.
With the Supreme Court granting the petition for judicial review, the government now faces a legal responsibility to adjust the provisions declared invalid.
This is the momentum to steer health reform back toward its most fundamental principles: legal certainty, professional independence, and the protection of public interests.
The President and Minister of Health Must Follow Up on the Ruling
In Indonesia's constitutional system, court rulings are not recommendations that can be implemented or ignored based on political considerations or bureaucratic interests.
The President, as Respondent I, and the Minister of Health, as Respondent II, are obligated to follow up on the verdict of Supreme Court Ruling Number 19 P/HUM/2026 according to their respective authorities.
Consequently, specific provisions in Government Regulation Number 28 of 2024 declared invalid must be addressed by the President. Similarly, provisions 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 that were the object of the ruling must be addressed by the Minister of Health.
This obligation has a constitutional basis in Article 24A paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, which grants the Supreme Court the authority to review regulations below the level of a law against the law itself.
Provisions regarding this authority are also regulated in the Law on the Supreme Court, including its amendments.
Furthermore, Article 8 paragraph (2) of Supreme Court Regulation Number 1 of 2011 concerning Judicial Review stipulates the consequences if the relevant body or official fails to carry out their obligations within 90 days after the ruling is sent.
In such a situation, the relevant legislation shall, by operation of law, have no legal force.
It should be understood that the 90-day deadline is calculated from the date the ruling is sent to the relevant official, not automatically from the date the ruling is read.
Therefore, the government's best course of action is not to wait for the deadline to expire, but to immediately conduct an evaluation, revocation, and adjustment of regulations in accordance with the scope of the ruling.
Compliance with court rulings is a tangible measure of the government's respect for the rule of law.
The Supreme Court Ruling Is Not a Reason to Dissolve the KKI and MDP
One important point that needs to be clarified is the understanding of the institutional consequences of this ruling.
The Supreme Court ruling should not be automatically interpreted as an order to dissolve the Indonesian Health Council or the Professional Disciplinary Council.
Both institutions have important functions in the national health system, including professional governance, registration, disciplinary oversight, and public protection.
What needs to be improved is the basis of institutional regulation, legitimacy, independence, and the mechanism for filling memberships in accordance with applicable legal provisions and the ruling.
If issues are found in the formation or appointment process of members, the government needs to carry out a comprehensive reorganization. This process must be conducted transparently, objectively, accountably, and free from conflicts of interest.
Involving competent and principled professional elements is also essential so that the established institutions gain the trust of all stakeholders.
However, institutional reform must not stop at name changes, organizational structure adjustments, or personnel replacements.
True improvement must touch upon the decision-making system, the relationship of authority between institutions, and guarantees of independence in carrying out their respective functions.
This is because independence is not enough just to be written in regulations. Independence must be proven through professional institutional practice that is free from undue intervention.
Restoring Collegium Independence and Professional Trust
The existence of collegiums is vital in maintaining scientific quality and competency standards for medical and health personnel.
A collegium is not merely part of an administrative structure. This institution holds scientific responsibility directly related to the quality of education, competency development, and the professionalism of health workers.
Therefore, guaranteeing the independence of the collegium is one of the essential elements in building a credible health system.
The arrangement of the relationship between the Collegiums, KKI, MDP, and the government must be carried out by paying attention to a clear division of tasks and authority.
There must be no overlapping authority or institutional relationships that actually weaken the objectivity of professional decisions.
Improvements also need to be directed at ensuring that every process of competency assessment, disciplinary oversight, and professional decision-making is based on scientific standards, ethics, and legal provisions.
Ultimately, a strong institution is not one that has the greatest power, but one that exercises its authority correctly, independently, and accountably.
Momentum for the Unity of Medical and Health Personnel
Supreme Court Ruling Number 19 P/HUM/2026 should also be a momentum to strengthen the unity of all medical and health personnel in Indonesia.
Doctors, dentists, and various health professional groups should not be trapped in prolonged disputes over institutional structures and organizational authority.
Differences in views regarding how to respond to court rulings are natural. However, such differences should be resolved through legal mechanisms and constructive dialogue, not by sharpening conflicts between professional groups.
There are still many fundamental issues that require collective attention, ranging from the quality of health education, equitable distribution of competence, improvement of graduate quality, professional protection, to patient safety.
These issues cannot be resolved if every element in the health system operates in isolation without good coordination.
The government, professional organizations, collegiums, educational institutions, hospitals, and all stakeholders need to build a common view that the public interest must be placed above group interests.
True health reform must produce a system that provides legal certainty for medical and health personnel, while ensuring that the public receives safe and high-quality services.
Thus, institutional reorganization is not just an internal professional matter, but part of the state's responsibility in protecting the public's right to health services.
Making the Supreme Court Ruling a Turning Point for Health Reform
It is time for Supreme Court Ruling Number 19 P/HUM/2026 to be used as a foundation for making more fundamental improvements to national health institutional governance.
The President and the Minister of Health need to show concrete steps in implementing the ruling. Meanwhile, all professional elements are expected to play a constructive role in ensuring the reorganization process proceeds openly and in accordance with the law.
The reconstruction of the Collegiums, KKI, and MDP must result in institutions that have strong legitimacy, are independent in exercising their authority, and gain the trust of medical personnel, health workers, and the public.
This ruling should not be viewed as a victory of one group over another. The winners should be legal certainty, professionalism, and the interests of the people.
A resilient national health system is not built solely through modern hospitals, sophisticated medical equipment, or large health budgets.
The equally important foundation is the quality of human resources, professional integrity, legal certainty, and institutions that work professionally and responsibly.
If this momentum is utilized well, Indonesia has the opportunity to build more credible health governance, strengthen public protection, and increase the nation's competitiveness at the global level.
Because in the end, health reform is not about who controls the institution, but about how each institution carries out its mandate for the sake of patient safety, professional dignity, and the interests of all the people of Indonesia.
Comments 0
Write a Comment Share your response