The Minister for Health submitted this Bill to the Special Committee of Commission IX of the House of Representatives (DPR) on 2 July 2008 for the purposes of this Bill being discussed and then enacted into law.
The basic premise for this Bill is that the expansion in medical knowledge and technology combined with concurrent pushes for globalization and decentralization, plus greater demands from the community that health services be more open and transparent has meant that the managing of a hospital has become increasingly complex.
This complexity demands that there be strict regulations in place that are conducive to legal enforcement and thereby providing greater levels of community satisfaction and legal certainty.
The Bill contains 15 Chapters and 58 Articles:
Chapter I – deals with the general definitions of the terms used;
Chapter II – states that the Bill is based on Pancasila whilst incorporating norms of humanity, benefits, justice, equality of rights and anti-discrimination, protection and safety of patients, and the social functions performed by hospitals;
Chapter III – states the functions and duties of hospitals;
Chapter IV – deals with the obligations of both the Central and Regional Governments with respect to providing hospitals to meet the basic needs of the surrounding communities, including the provision of medical services to the disadvantaged;
Chapter V – regulates the physical requirements of a hospital with regard to location, infrastructure, equipment, and pharmacy issues;
Chapter VI – regulates the types and classifications of hospitals;
Chapter VII – stipulates licensing requirements;
Chapter VIII – sets out the rights and obligations of both hospitals and their patients;
Chapter IX – addresses the issues relating to hospital management;
Chapter X – regulates matters with regard to hospital fees, funding, and subsidies;
Chapter XI – stipulates the provisions regarding the recording of data, reporting, and the obligation to use an information management system for this purpose;
Chapter XII – deals with matters relating to guidance and supervision of hospitals;
Chapter XIII – sets out the criminal provisions;
Chapter XIV and XV – deal with transitional and closing provision respectively.
All of the factions in the DPR have already agreed to proceed with discussion on the Bill. However, it is expected that this process may take some time in spite of the enthusiasm of the various factions to discuss it. The responses of some of the factions indicates that there will be issues to be resolved such as whether hospitals should be left completely to market forces or if not what involvement should the government have. Or is the most natural mechanism to have a private and public hospital system catering to different parts of the community.
Showing posts with label Amendment Bill. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Amendment Bill. Show all posts
27 August 2008
25 August 2008
Draft Amendments to the Law on General Courts
This series of amendments has been proposed by the Legislation Agency of the DPR and these amendments reflect recent developments in judicial reform. A regular complaint of the Indonesian judiciary relates to its inconsistency in the decision making process and the frequent claims that justice is administered in favor of those who know best how to “tweak” the system.
A quick survey of judicial related news over the last 12 – 24 months highlights that the big issues of concern have been the manner in which general courts accept and administer cases, the court ‘mafia’, and the long-term stand-off between the Supreme Court and the State Audit Board with regard to the auditing of court or case fees. Each of these issues has been regulated in the Draft Bill.
The basic premise for the Bill is that there is a need for general courts to be seen as clean, accountable, transparent, and judicious in the provision of the court’s judicial, administrative, and financial functions. Furthermore, there is a need for greater supervision and discipline with respect to the behavior of judicial officers.
The Bill includes the insertion of five articles between Article 1 and Article 2, namely: 1A through 1E. In essence, these articles regulate that the general courts are based on the application of Pancasila, the involvement of external parties in case administration is prohibited, there is equality of the relevant parties before the law, the general courts may not refuse to hear matters, and there is to be full and equitable access to the courts.
Other interesting amendments to the Law see explicit reference that the Judicial Commission is responsible for the supervision of judges. However, this is clarified to state that the supervision must not impinge on the independence of judges to carry out their judicial functions of hearing and deciding cases.
The final amendment of note is that the Bill states unequivocally that general courts have a right to demand fees for the hearing of cases. The management and responsibility for this money would appear to require further regulation in a specific legal instrument for that purpose. However, the amendment leaves no doubt that the State Audit Board may audit these monies to ensure that the fees collected are not misused or abused.
It is not expected that these amendments will be subject to extensive debate as most of this debate has already been carried out in other public forums and the amendments appear to reflect the lowest common denominator that all stakeholders seem to be resigned to accepting.
The amendments will, if passed in this form, serve to strengthen the credibility of the general courts and the belief that judicial reform in Indonesia is a serious undertaking which has considerable support from the courts themselves.
A quick survey of judicial related news over the last 12 – 24 months highlights that the big issues of concern have been the manner in which general courts accept and administer cases, the court ‘mafia’, and the long-term stand-off between the Supreme Court and the State Audit Board with regard to the auditing of court or case fees. Each of these issues has been regulated in the Draft Bill.
The basic premise for the Bill is that there is a need for general courts to be seen as clean, accountable, transparent, and judicious in the provision of the court’s judicial, administrative, and financial functions. Furthermore, there is a need for greater supervision and discipline with respect to the behavior of judicial officers.
The Bill includes the insertion of five articles between Article 1 and Article 2, namely: 1A through 1E. In essence, these articles regulate that the general courts are based on the application of Pancasila, the involvement of external parties in case administration is prohibited, there is equality of the relevant parties before the law, the general courts may not refuse to hear matters, and there is to be full and equitable access to the courts.
Other interesting amendments to the Law see explicit reference that the Judicial Commission is responsible for the supervision of judges. However, this is clarified to state that the supervision must not impinge on the independence of judges to carry out their judicial functions of hearing and deciding cases.
The final amendment of note is that the Bill states unequivocally that general courts have a right to demand fees for the hearing of cases. The management and responsibility for this money would appear to require further regulation in a specific legal instrument for that purpose. However, the amendment leaves no doubt that the State Audit Board may audit these monies to ensure that the fees collected are not misused or abused.
It is not expected that these amendments will be subject to extensive debate as most of this debate has already been carried out in other public forums and the amendments appear to reflect the lowest common denominator that all stakeholders seem to be resigned to accepting.
The amendments will, if passed in this form, serve to strengthen the credibility of the general courts and the belief that judicial reform in Indonesia is a serious undertaking which has considerable support from the courts themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
