<![CDATA[This study aims to analyze the juridical implications of the total prohibition of female circumcision under Article 102(a) of Government Regulation No. 28 of 2024 and to formulate a principled legal classification that distinguishes physically harmful invasive procedures from non-invasive symbolic cultural or religious practices. The enactment of Article 102(a) marks a decisive regulatory shift from the conditional harm-reduction framework of Ministry of Health Regulation No. 1636/2010 to a categorical ban; however, the provision's failure to define the boundary between invasive female genital mutilation and non-invasive symbolic acts generates three compounding juridical failures: unresolved constitutional tension with Article 18B(2) of the 1945 Constitution, unjustified legal exposure for healthcare workers performing harmless symbolic acts, and the risk of driving dangerous clandestine practices. No prior study has addressed this interpretive gap through a doctrinal classification framework applicable to Article 102(a). This study employs a normative legal research method integrating statutory, conceptual, and case approaches, with analysis conducted through identification, systematization, interpretation, and norm construction stages. The findings establish a two-tier classification model structured around four objective indicators — physical harm, medical risk, instrument use, and legal consequence — distinguishing Category 1 invasive FGM (subject to absolute prohibition) from Category 2 non-invasive symbolic rituals (conditionally permissible). The study further proposes a four-paragraph normative reformulation of Article 102(a) and recommends the issuance of technical implementing guidelines to operationalize the classification, protect healthcare workers from disproportionate liability, and harmonize health law unification with Indonesia's constitutionally recognized legal pluralism.]]>
