You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

July 11, 2023

Indonesia’s First Draft of Omnibus Health Law Shows Promise

Subscribe to Updates

Enacted in 2009, Indonesia’s current Law on Health (Law No. 36/2009) is due for a refresh. The government realized that the law has not maintained its relevance when it comes to health trends such as digital health, which refers to the provision of health services online (also commonly known as telemedicine). While regulations and policy blueprints, such as Ministry of Health (MOH) Regulation No. 46/2017 concerning National E-Health Strategies, have addressed these shifting trends, Indonesia’s main health legislation has proved inadequate in this regard.

For this reason, the government began making plans for an update to the law, and the first draft Omnibus Health Law was published in March 2023. The law addresses digital health and other important issues in today’s health landscape, and it seeks to promote the use of locally made health supplies. The draft Omnibus Health Law represents a notable step forward, but in its attempt to govern and regulate all aspects of health, there are also some issues in the draft that may overlap with some existing government regulations, such as provisions on Halal certification, compulsory licensing of patents, and addictive substances.

This article outlines some of the draft law’s key aspects as well as some potential issues.

Digital Health

In addressing the growing health trend of telemedicine, the draft law confirms, reinforces, and fills gaps left by Indonesia’s three main regulations concerning telemedicine. namely, MOHR No. 20/2019 concerning Telemedicine, MOHR No. 24/2022 concerning Medical Records, and Medical Council Regulation No. 74/2020 concerning Telemedicine (MCR No. 74/2020).

One of these regulations, MOH Regulation No. 20/2019, allows health service facilities to provide telemedicine services to other health service facilities. This covers telemedicine services related to radiology, electrocardiography, ultrasonography, and telemedicine consultancy services—including those that reflect developments in science and technology. This is the only regulation concerning telemedicine services that will not be revoked once the pandemic status is revoked. It will also remain in effect with further implementing regulations (i.e., government regulations) if MOH Regulation No. 20/2019 does not conflict with them.

Another of the telemedicine regulations, Medical Council Regulation No. 74/2020 regulates telemedicine services between Health Service Facilities and patients directly. However, this regulation only applies during the COVID-19 pandemic, meaning that once the pandemic status is revoked by the government there will be no regulation for telemedicine services between health service facilities and patients. This is the void filled by the draft Omnibus Health Law 2023, which states that health service facilities can provide telemedicine services directly to patients, in accordance with an implementing regulation issued in the future.

The draft Omnibus Health Law does not have any differences with the third existing telemedicine regulation, MOH Regulation No. 24/2022 on Medical Records. According to both the regulation and the draft law, health care personnel must be the ones to generate medical records. Health service facilities are also responsible for the security, integrity, confidentiality, and availability of the data in medical records.

The draft law also requires health system information providers to integrate their information systems with the MOH digital system. This integration will enable healthcare personnel, patients, and related parties to access up-to-date and relevant information.

Promotion of Domestic Health Supplies

The draft Omnibus Health Law also promotes the use of health technology originating in Indonesia (referred to in Indonesian as produk dalam negeri). Under the draft, the government is responsible for ensuring the availability, equity, and affordability of health supplies—especially essential drugs (as listed by the government) and drugs used in nationwide programs. The government’s procurement of these health supplies must prioritize domestic products, and generic drugs with international nonproprietary names marketed in Indonesia can only be produced by local pharmaceutical companies.

The draft Omnibus Health Law appears to exclude access to some innovative drugs. While the government is understandably eager to promote locally produced drugs, it is still necessary to import some innovative drugs when the drug cannot be produced locally or the volume of local production is insufficient.

Halal Certification

The draft Omnibus Health Law states that pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and household health supplies must be safe, effective, beneficial, halal, of good quality, and affordable. It further specifies that these items must meet the halal requirements laid out in Indonesian law.

This contrasts with the current Law on Health (Law No. 36/2009), which does not mention the term “halal.” Indonesia’s halal requirements are stipulated in Law No. 33/2014 on Halal Product Assurance and its implementing regulations issued by the Halal Product Assurance Organizing Body. To avoid any confusion and ambiguity on halal certification requirements, the Omnibus Health Law should align with Law No. 33/2014 and its implementing regulations, particularly regarding products that are exempted from obtaining halal certification.

Patent Compulsory Licensing

In regard to compulsory licensing of patents, the draft law states that to ensure the availability and affordability of patent-protected drugs, interventions can be carried out through patent implementation by the central government or through compulsory licensing.

One consideration here is that Indonesia’s Patent Law No. 13/2016 is also undergoing revision. The government should make sure to align the draft Omnibus Health Law with the Patent Law with regard to patent compulsory licensing to avoid confusion or a lack of clarity. In doing so, the government should also consider compulsory licensing of patents for imported pharmaceutical products that cannot be produced locally.

Safeguards on Addictive Substances

The draft Omnibus Health Law states that the production, distribution, and use of addictive substances should not disturb or endanger the health of individuals, families, communities, and the environment. “Addictive substances” include all materials or products that are addictive in nature and whose use can have detrimental effects on individuals or the community at large. These can include:

  • narcotics;
  • psychotropics;
  • alcoholic beverages;
  • tobacco products; and
  • other processed products of addictive substances.

Narcotics and psychotropics are not identified as addictive substances in Health Law No. 36/2009, but they are illegal substances in that their production, distribution, and consumption are prohibited and subject to criminal sanctions. The Omnibus Health Law should remove narcotics and psychotropics from this provision of addictive substances because they are illegal substances that are regulated under Law No. 35/2009 on Narcotics and Law No. 5/2007 on Psychotropics.

Next Steps

Once this draft Omnibus Health Law is issued by the government, the implementing regulations for this law will likely be discussed in the legislature. However, there not yet been any indication from the government regarding when draft Omnibus Health Law could be passed into law.

Based on the first draft that has been published, we can see that the Omnibus Health Law in Indonesia will address key issues in the health sector, particularly in the areas of digital health, domestic health supplies, and compulsory licensing. However, further revisions and alignment with existing laws and regulations will be necessary to ensure clarity and avoid conflicts.

Related Professionals

Industries

Life Sciences

Practices

Regulatory Affairs

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 28, 2026
On September 15, 2026, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (Thai FDA) opened a public consultation period on the principles of a proposed Ministry of Public Health (MOPH) notification establishing specific Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) requirements for foods derived from cultured animal cells. The proposal would build on Thailand’s existing safety assessment framework by proposing GMP requirements specifically tailored to the production of cultivated meat. As cultivated meat advances toward commercial production, its unique manufacturing processes present food safety challenges involving aseptic conditions, starting cell quality, culture media, and specialized equipment. Thailand’s Food Act B.E. 2522 (1979) provides the legal basis for regulating food manufacturing, but no GMP requirements specifically tailored to cultivated meat have been issued under it. The proposed framework aims to address this gap. The Thai FDA has not yet released a complete draft notification, so the proposed requirements outlined below may change before adoption. However, they indicate the direction the regulator intends to take, and companies preparing to enter the Thai market can use them now to anticipate their compliance obligations. What Is Cultivated Meat? Cultivated meat, also known as cell-based food or cell-cultured meat (and referred to in the proposed notification as food derived from cultured animal cells), is produced by cultivating animal cells rather than raising and slaughtering animals through conventional meat production. The process generally begins with the selection of animal cells or stem cells, which are cultivated in an appropriate culture medium within a bioreactor to promote cell growth and proliferation. Scaffolding materials or other techniques may subsequently be used to develop cells into tissue or other forms suitable for consumption. Unlike conventional meat production, this process introduces specific food safety considerations relating to starting cells, culture media, production substances, contamination controls, and potential residues in the final product. Thailand’s Safety
Read More
September 9, 2026
On August 5, 2026, the Consumer Case Division of Thailand’s Civil Court rendered a judgment in a case involving a beauty clinic that advertised acne scar treatments using claims that the clinic was operated by a specialist physician and that the treatment, allegedly involving stem cell technology, could permanently remove acne scars. The plaintiff brought a claim against both the physician-owner and the clinic company, alleging that the advertisements were false and induced her to purchase the treatment. The court found that the clinic was liable for the false representations and that the physician-owner, as both the authorized director of the company and the medical practitioner who provided treatment, was jointly responsible. Although the plaintiff could not fully prove all damages claimed, the court awarded compensation of THB 20,000, together with interest. While the judgment arose from a consumer protection dispute, it serves as a valuable reminder that medical facility advertisements in Thailand are regulated and may expose clinics and healthcare providers not only to regulatory enforcement but also to civil liability from patients who rely on misleading promotional claims. Regulatory Framework Governing Medical Facility Advertisements Medical facility advertising in Thailand is governed by the Medical Facility Act B.E. 2541 (1998), as amended by the Medical Facility Act (No. 4) B.E. 2559 (2016). The principal secondary legislation is the Department of Health Service Support (DoHSS) Notification Re: Rules, Procedures, Conditions, and Fees for an Advertisement or Publication Concerning a Medical Facility, which came into force on November 25, 2019. Under this notification, “advertising” includes any act, by any means, that causes members of the public to see, hear, or otherwise become aware of a message, sound, or image for the commercial benefit of a medical facility. This broad definition covers not only traditional media but also clinic websites, social
Read More
September 9, 2026
On June 30, 2026, Indonesia’s National Agency of Drug and Food Control (BPOM) issued BPOM Regulation No. 11 of 2026 on Food Packaging, which expands the list of approved food-contact substances and recognizes a broader range of permissible functions for those substances. The new regulation, which revokes BPOM Regulation No. 20 of 2019, reflects developments in packaging technology and materials science. Although the new regulation provides more advantages to business actors by adding more food contact substances to the approved list for use in food packaging, there are more stringent rules and restrictions for testing. One of the most significant changes is a comprehensive migration-testing framework that sets out requirements for packaging materials, testing conditions, food simulants, and specific migration limits. Overall and Specific Migration Under BPOM Regulation No. 20 of 2019, migration requirements were primarily set out within the lists of approved food-contact substances and packaging materials. BPOM Regulation No. 11 of 2026 instead expressly requires packaging materials that come into direct contact with food to meet both overall and specific migration limits. These are defined as follows: Overall migration: The total quantity of all substances that migrate from the packaging, regardless of whether the substances are hazardous or nonhazardous to health. Specific migration: The quantity of a particular identified substance known to be hazardous to health that migrates from the packaging. Stricter Limits on Heavy Metals The overall migration limit for plastic packaging remains unchanged under both regulations at 60 mg/kg or 10 mg/dm². However, the new regulation introduces significant changes to the regulation of heavy metals. Under the 2019 regulation, four heavy metals—lead, cadmium, chromium VI, and mercury—were subject to a single combined limit of 1 mg/kg. The 2026 regulation, however, requires each heavy metal to meet its own individual specific migration limit, adds arsenic as
Read More
September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
Read More