Reconstructing Indonesia's Medical Professional Discipline System under Law No. 17 of 2023: A Normative Legal Analysis

Abstract

Purpose: This study analyzes the implications of Law Number 17 of 2023 on Health for Indonesia’s medical professional discipline system and formulates a normatively grounded reconstruction model to strengthen legal certainty, patient protection, professional autonomy, and public accountability. Methods: This study employed normative legal research using statutory and conceptual approaches. Legal materials were selected based on relevance, authority, currency, and relation to the research questions. Primary materials included Law Number 17 of 2023 on Health, Law Number 29 of 2004 on Medical Practice, Law Number 36 of 2014 on Health Workers, and implementing regulations. The materials were classified and comparatively examined according to institutional authority, complaint and examination mechanisms, transitional provisions, and links with administrative, civil, and criminal proceedings. Analysis used legal interpretation, regulatory comparison, and deductive legal reasoning. Findings:  The results indicate a shift from a profession-based disciplinary system toward stronger state supervision, creating challenges involving institutional authority, legal certainty, and professional autonomy. Three issues were identified: institutional restructuring, changes in complaint and examination mechanisms, and normative disharmony during transition. From the normative comparison, the study derives a four-pillar reconstruction model comprising clarity of institutional authority, fair and transparent procedures, accessible patient complaint mechanisms, and independent professional disciplinary councils. The model is proposed as a normative framework rather than an empirically validated model. Conclusion: Effective reform requires harmonized legal norms, clear institutional arrangements, fair procedures, and balanced relations between state oversight and professional autonomy. Originality: This study proposes a normatively derived four-pillar framework whose effectiveness requires further empirical evaluation.