<![CDATA[Basic immunization constitutes both a child's right and state obligation in fulfilling public health standards. Mandatory immunization policy creates tension between state authority and parental rights to determine children's healthcare. Resistance from certain communities due to religious beliefs, vaccine side-effect concerns, and anti-vaccination movement influence threatens herd immunity and child health. Research problems examine how juridical construction of mandatory basic immunization addresses conflicts between parental autonomy rights and best interests of the child, and how law enforcement mechanisms and sanctions can be implemented proportionally and justly. This normative juridical research analyzes legislation, international legal instruments, and legal literature using primary legal materials including the 1945 Constitution, Law Number 17 of 2023 on Health, Law Number 35 of 2014 on Child Protection, Ministry of Health Regulation Number 12 of 2017, and Convention on the Rights of the Child. Research findings indicate mandatory immunization possesses strong constitutional legitimacy, where parental rights are relative and may be proportionally limited when endangering child health based on best interests of the child principle. However, law enforcement mechanisms remain weak due to absence of explicit sanctions and firm conflict resolution mechanisms. Research novelty lies in comparative analysis with Australia and Italy, and recommendation of hybrid model for Indonesia. Required are regulatory strengthening with tiered sanctions, integration with social assistance programs, development of responsive dispute resolution mechanisms, enhancement of evidence-based health literacy, and cross-sectoral collaboration to optimize child rights protection through immunization.]]>
