<![CDATA[ Background: The increasing complexity of the relationship between patients and healthcare professionals has led to a higher potential for medical disputes, thereby requiring dispute resolution mechanisms that are effective, fair, and oriented toward restoring legal relationships between the parties. Law Number 17 of 2023 on Health mandates that medical disputes must be resolved through non-litigation mechanisms before judicial proceedings are pursued. This regulatory framework reflects a paradigm shift toward restorative and dialogical dispute resolution within the Indonesian healthcare legal system. Purpose: This study aims to analyze the authority of the Mataram City Health Office in facilitating the non-litigation resolution of medical disputes and to evaluate the implementation of such mechanisms from the perspectives of legal certainty and legal protection for the parties involved. Methods: This study employs a socio-legal approach that combines empirical and normative legal analysis. Primary data were obtained through in-depth interviews with officials of the Mataram City Health Office, mediators, healthcare professionals, and other relevant stakeholders, supported by mediation documents and institutional records. Secondary data were collected from legislation, legal literature, and policy documents. Data were analyzed qualitatively using the perspectives of living law, legal pluralism, and restorative justice. Results: The findings demonstrate that the authority of the Mataram City Health Office possesses strong juridical legitimacy under Law Number 30 of 1999, Law Number 23 of 2014, and Article 310 of Law Number 17 of 2023. Empirical evidence further reveals that the MONALISA mediation mechanism has evolved into a socially accepted dispute resolution practice that reflects the principles of shūrā (deliberation), iṣlāḥ (reconciliation), and public welfare within Muslim society. The effectiveness of mediation is therefore supported not only by statutory regulation but also by the interaction of state law, professional ethics, local culture, and Islamic values, illustrating the operation of legal pluralism in medical dispute resolution. Implication: The findings suggest that strengthening institutional mediation should involve not only regulatory reinforcement but also the incorporation of local social and religious values into healthcare dispute resolution policies. Such an approach may enhance public trust, expand access to justice, and promote ethical governance in healthcare services. Originality: This study contributes to the socio-legal discourse on healthcare governance by demonstrating that the effectiveness of medical dispute resolution through the Mediation House and the MONALISA system is shaped by the interaction between legal authority, professional norms, and community-based dispute resolution practices. ]]>
