Article Sidebar

Submitted
July 11, 2025
Accepted
November 26, 2025
Published
November 30, 2025
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 0 Download : 0

Main Article Content

Abstract

This paper examines the legal stance of the Professional Disciplinary Council in the medical dispute resolution system based on Law Number 17 of 2023 on Healthcare and its derivative regulations. This study employs a normative juridical research method with a critical analysis of the provisions of Article 308 paragraphs (5) and (6) of the Healthcare Law, and compares them with the concept of quasi-judicial bodies in the legal literature. The main focus of this study is to understand in depth the role, authority, and legal implications of the existence of the Professional Disciplinary Council as part of the medical dispute resolution mechanism, especially in the context of the relationship between health worker professionalism and the criminal justice system. The results of the study indicate that the Professional Disciplinary Council has an important role as a quasi-investigative institution, namely conducting ethical and professional assessments of alleged disciplinary violations by health workers, and providing recommendations before the criminal investigation process is carried out. However, these recommendations is yet to have any legally binding force, thus creating legal ambiguity and potentially triggering tensions between professional institutions and law enforcement officials. To address these problems, this study offers an ideal model for medical dispute resolution that upholds professional justice and legal justice in a balanced manner. The need for normative recognition of the Council's role in the Bill of Criminal Procedure Code (RUU KUHAP) is emphasised, as well as improvements to the institutional design to ensure clarity in mechanisms, boundaries of authority, and synergy between institutions. This is expected to ensure the resolution of medical disputes is fair and accountable, guarantees the protection of the dignity of healthcare workers, and provides legal certainty for patients.

Keywords

Legal Justice Professional Disciplinary Council Medical Disputes Quasi-Investigation

Article Details

License

Copyright (c) 2025 Annisa Fitira, Rahayu Subekti, Isharyanto Isharyanto

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

a. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

b. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

How to Cite
Fitira, A., Subekti, R., & Isharyanto, I. (2025). Kedudukan Rekomendasi Majelis Disiplin Profesi Sebagai Quasi-Penyelidikan Dalam Penyelesaian Sengketa Medik di Indonesia. Jurnal Hukum IUS QUIA IUSTUM, 32(3), 653–680. https://doi.org/10.20885/iustum.vol32.iss3.art6
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

  1. Alfina, Sita Tahta, and Yovita Arie Mangesti. Peran Majelis Disiplin Profesi Dalam Penyelesaian Sengketa Medis Ditinjau Dari Undang-Undang Nomor 17 Tahun 2023 Tentang Kesehatan. 07, no. 1 (2025).

  2. Amirthalingam, K. “Medical Dispute Resolution, Patient Safety and the Doctor-Patient Relationship.” Singapore Medical Journal 58, no. 12 (2017): 681–84. https://doi.org/10.11622/smedj.2017073.

  3. Andrianto, W. “Secarik Catatan Untuk Majelis Disiplin Dokter.” Hukumonline, October 10, 2024. https://www.hukumonline.com/berita/a/secarik-catatan-untuk-majelis-disiplin-dokter-lt6706b7468a97a/. diakses 7/8/2025

  4. Comtois, S., and K. J. (Eds). de Graaf. “On Judicial and Quasi-Judicial Independence.” Eleven International Publishing., 2013.

  5. Efendi, Jonaedi, and Johnny Ibrahim. Metode Penelitian Hukum Normatif dan Empiris. KENCANA (PRENADAMEDIA Group), 2018.

  6. Gaine, j. “No-Fault Compensation Systems.” BMJ 326, no. 7397 (2003): 997–98. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.326.7397.997.

  7. Giesen, D. J. International Medical Malpractice Law: A Comparative Law Study of Civil Liability Arising from Medical Care. 2nd Ed. JCB Mohr, n.d.

  8. Gimmel, A. “Understanding Courts in Context: On the Embeddedness and Interaction of Judicial Bodies in a Functionally Differentiated World Society.” European Review of International Studies 5, no. 1 (2018): 5–27.

  9. Hamzah, Andi. Hukum Pidana Indonesia. Sinar Grafika, 2017.

  10. Hyman, D.A., and C Silver. “Medical Malpractice Litigation and Tort Reform: It’s the Incentives, Stupid.” Vanderbilt Law Review 59, no. 4 (2006): 1085–116.

  11. Iedema, R. “What Prevents Incident Disclosure, and What Can Be Done to Promote It?” The Joint Commission Journal of Quality and Patient Safety 37, no. 9 (2011): 409–17.

  12. Lo, B. “Resolving Ethical Dilemmas: A Guide for Clinicians.” Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2012.

  13. Luo, J, Z Zheng, and R Yu. “Analysis of Medical Malpractice Liability Disputes Related to Novel Antineoplastic Drugs and Research on Risk Prevention and Control Strategies.” PLoS ONE 18, no. 6 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286623.

  14. Manning, J. M. “Does the Law on Compensation for Research-Related Injury in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand Meet Ethical Requirements?” Medical Law Review 25, no. 3 (2017): 397–427. https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwx019.

  15. May, M. L., and D. B. Stengel. “Who Sues Their Doctors? How Patients Handle Medical Grievances.” Law and Society Review 24, no. 1 (1990): 105–40.

  16. Merry, S. E. “Getting Justice and Getting Even: Legal Consciousness Among Working-Class Americans.” University of Chicago Press, 1990.

  17. Mixon, J., and R. P. Schuwerk. “The Personal Dimension of Professional Responsibility.” Law and Contemporary Problems 8, no. 3/4 (1995): 87–115.

  18. Mulcahy, L., and W Teeder. “Are Litigants, Trials and Precedents Vanishing After All?” The Modern Law Review 85, no. 2 (2022): 326–48.

  19. Oliphant, K. “Beyond Misadventure: Compensation for Medical Injuries in New Zealand.” Medical Law Review 15, no. 3 (n.d.): 357–91. https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwm016.

  20. Paris, J. J., J. Ahluwalia, B. M. Cummings, M. P. Moreland, and D. J. Wilkinson. “The Charlie Gard Case: British and American Approaches to Court Resolution of Disputes over Medical Decisions.” Journal of Perinatology 37, no. 12 (2017): 1268–71. https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2017.138.

  21. Peraturan Menteri Kesehatan Nomor 12 Tahun 2024 Tentang Mekanisme Seleksi, Tata Cara Pengangkatan Dan Pemberhentian Dan Tata Kerja Konsil Kesehatan Indonesia, Kolegium Kesehatan Indonesia Dan Majelis Disiplin Profesi, Nomor 570 Tahun 2024 Berita Negara Republik Indonesia (2024).

  22. Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 28 Tahun 2024 Tentang Peraturan Pelaksana Undang-Undang Nomor 17 Tahun 2023 Tentang Kesehatan, Nomor 135 Tahun 2024 Lembar Negara Republik Indonesia (2024).

  23. Petersmann, U. E. “Judging Judges: From ‘Principal-Agent Theory’ to ‘Constitutional Justice’ in Multilevel ‘Judicial Governance’ of Economic Cooperation among Citizens.” Journal of International Economic Law 11, no. 4 (2008): 827–84.

  24. Pope, T. M. “Charlie Gard’s Five Months in Court: Better Dispute Resolution Mechanisms for Medical Futility Disputes.” Journal of Medical Ethics 44, no. 7 (2018): 436–37. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2018-104744.

  25. Quick, O. “Patient Safety and the Problem and Potential of Law.” Professional Negligence 28, no. 2 (2012): 78–92.

  26. Sert, M. F., E. Yildirim, and S. Calis. “Could the Decisions of Quasi-Judicial Institutions Be Predicted by Machine Learning Techniques?” Statute Law Review 45, no. 3 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1093/slr/hmae050.

  27. Shaffer, T.L. “Christian Theories of Professional Responsibility.” Southern California Law Review 48 (1974): 721–47.

  28. Sherman, N., and B. T. Nomani. “Alternative Dispute Resolution: Mediation as a Model.” F1000Research 13, no. 778 (2025). https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.152362.2.

  29. Solaiman, B. “Telehealth in the Metaverse: Legal & Ethical Challenges for Cross-Border Care in Virtual Worlds.” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 51, no. 2 (2023): 287–300.

  30. Sutarno, and Maryati. “Information of Medical Malpractice and Risks in the Informed Consent Process before Surgery in Indonesia.” Yustisia 10, no. 2 (2021): 269–90.

  31. Tan, David. Metode Penelitian Hukum: Mengupas Dan Mengulas Metodologi Dalam Menyelenggarakan Penelitian Hukum. 2021.

  32. Thoenig, J. C. Institutional Theories and Public Institutions: Traditions and Appropriateness. In G. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), Handbook of Public Administration. Sage, 2003.

  33. Tignino, Mara. “Quasi-Judicial Bodies” In S. Besson & J. d’Aspremont (Eds.), Research Handbook on the Theory and Practice of International Lawmaking. S. Besson & J. d’Aspremont (Eds.), Research Handbook on the Theory and Practice of International Lawmaking. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, 2016.

  34. Tingle, J. “Compensation Culture Encourages Patients to Sue. B.” Ritish Journal of Nursing 13, no. 16 (2004): 938.

  35. Turmelty, M. E. “Plaintiff Aims in Medical Negligence Disputes: Limitations of an Adversarial System.” Medical Law Review 31, no. 2 (2023): 226–46. https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwac037.

  36. Turton, G. “Informed Consent to Medical Treatment Post-Montgomery: Causation and Coincidence.” Medical Law Review 27, no. 1 (2019): 108–34. https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwy026.

  37. Undang-Undang Nomor 17 Tahun 2023 Tentang Kesehatan, Nomor 105 Tahun 2023 Lembar Negara Republik Indonesia (2023).

  38. Wade, H. W. R. “‘Quasi-Judicial’ and Its Background.” The Cambridge Law Journal 10, no. 2 (1949): 216–40. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197300012368.

  39. Wei, M. “Doctors, Apologies, and the Law: An Analysis and Critique of Apology Laws.” Journal of Health Law 39, no. 4 (2007): 107–43.

  40. Wendel, W. B. “Public Values and Professional Responsibility.” Notre Dame Law Review 75 (1999): 1–37.

  41. White, B. P., C. M. Haining, and L Willmott. “How Best to Regulate Voluntary Assisted Dying: A Qualitative Study of Perceptions of Australian Doctors and Regulators.” Medical Law Review 33, no. 1 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwae045.

  42. Williams, K. “State of Fear: Britain’s ‘Compensation Culture’ Reviewed.” Legal Studies 25, no. 3 (2005): 449–76.

  43. Zhang, L, and S Zhang. “Analysis and Improving Countermeasures of Medical Disputes from the Perspective of Legal Changes.” Journal of Otolaryngology., ahead of print, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joto.2024.05.004.

  44. Zhang, X. D, T Tian, X. F. Yi, and J. H. Sun. “Comparison of Medical Dispute Resolution Mechanisms in China and Abroad.” Fa Yi Xue Za Zhi 38, no. 2 (2022): 150–57. https://doi.org/10.12116/j.issn.1004-5619.2022.220106.