Full PNS Test the Regional Government Law and Hospital Law

The Constitutional Court (MK) held an inaugural session on the testing of Law Number 23 Year 2014 concerning Regional Government (Regional Government Law) and Law Number 44 of 2009 concerning Hospitals (Hospital Law) on Wednesday (1/30/2019). Applicants question the differences in interpretation of the status of regional public service bodies related to the management of government or regional government hospitals.

Rachmadi Sularsono who is a civil servant is listed as the Petitioner for Case Number 12 / PUU-XVII / 2019. The applicant tests Article 209 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) along with the attachments to the Regional Government Law and Article 7 paragraph (3) of the Hospital Law. At present, the applicant’s employment status is a full civil servant not at his own request. He felt that his constitutional rights were harmed because he did not get legal protection for the multiple interpretations of the enactment of the Law a quo .

“My employment status is in the legal process at the Administrative Court level with the principal case of light category disciplinary punishment. However, at the cassation level a heavy disciplinary sentence is imposed with the type of dismissal respectfully not at his own request, “he explained via video conference .

The applicant then made a legal effort in the form of an administrative appeal, but there was no verdict. The Petitioner argues that his constitutional loss arises because there is a conflict between Article 209 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of the Regional Government Law and Article 7 paragraph (3) of the Hospital Law. “In Article 209 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of Law 23/2014, it does not include an explanation regarding the agency in charge of the health sector, certain agencies or Regional Technical Institutions in the organizational structure of the regional apparatus. Even so, the Appendix does not explain the duties and functions of hospitals managed by the Government or the Regional Government, “he stated in Case Number 12 / PUU – XVII / 2019.

In accordance with the provisions of the Hospital Law, hospitals established by the Government or Regional Government can be in the form of a Health Service Technical Implementation Unit if the classification of the hospital is type C and D. The regional Technical Institution that must conduct its financial management pattern is the BLUD and is Regional Technical Institutions or Certain Agencies in the health sector.

The applicant explained further, there are two types of Regional Public Service Bodies, namely the BLUD Technical Implementation Unit is headed by the Head of the Health Service and the BLUD is headed by the Director of the Hospital. The Head of the Puskesmas or the Head of the Hospital as the Technical Implementation Unit has a command line to the Head of the Health Office responsible to the Regional Head through the Regional Secretary. Hospitals in the form of Regional Technical Institutions or Certain Agencies if the BLUD is, then the director of the RSUD is responsible to the Regional Head through the Regional Secretary.

For this reason, in the petitum, the Petitioner requested that the Court Article 209 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) along with its attachments to the Regional Government Law and Article 7 paragraph (3) of the Hospital Law contradict the 1945 Constitution Article 28D paragraph (1) and have no binding legal force .

Legal Position

Responding to the request, Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna questioned the Petitioner’s legal position which he considered unclear. “If this is not clear, the Court will not examine the Principal Application,” he said.

This part, said Palguna, the Petitioner must elaborate on the constitutional disadvantages he suffered because of this article. Its nature must be clear and specific, for example, indicated by the causal relationship between the loss of the Applicant and the enactment of the article being tested. Likewise regarding the description of the petition he judged has not elaborated on the reasons for the Constitutional Court to grant the Petitioner’s petition. “After this is complete, the Applicant can enter the side of the main reason for the request. In this section, the Petitioner must prove why this Law is considered to be contrary to the Constitution, “he stressed.

In line with Palguna, Manahan Constitutional Justice MP Sitompul also criticized the issue of legal standing. He has not clearly seen the constitutional impairment of the Petitioner with the existence of the article being tested. “My vision is not clear which norms to test. This needs fundamental improvement, “he said firmly. He said that precisely the Petitioner explained his concrete case.

Likewise, said Manahan, for the problem of writing there are still many mistakes made, such as the order of writing is the later chapter and then the verse. “This needs a lot of improvement. I suggest that you ask for input from legal experts who have frequently conducted proceedings at the Constitutional Court. For example, you can also ask for legal aid agencies in Universitas Brawijaya where you live, “he explained. (Arif Satriantoro / LA)

Source: THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC INDONESIA