<![CDATA[While the right to healthcare is recognized as an internationally binding obligation, existing legal frameworks often fail to translate state duties into enforceable legal liability when healthcare facility delivery collapses. To address this critical enforcement gap, this study proposes a novel legal framework to redesign state liability in healthcare provision, establishing how state responsibility should be structurally reconfigured in Indonesia through a comparative synthesis with Malaysia and the Netherlands. Utilizing a normative juridical method with conceptual and comparative approaches, this research analyzes how distinct legal traditions shape state legal accountability. The findings reveal that Indonesia relies on an explicit constitutional entitlement with a direct administrative-fault model, which currently suffers from enforcement bottlenecks and budgetary retrogressions. Conversely, Malaysia operates under an implicit statutory right managed through an operational vicarious liability model, limiting state claims strictly to civil torts within public facilities. Meanwhile, the Netherlands adopts an instructional social-right approach implemented through a supervisory-systemic regulatory model, where the state acts strictly as a system guardian within a managed competition framework. By synthesizing these divergent systems, this study reconstructs a balanced state liability model for Indonesia that integrates direct constitutional mandates, operational vicarious compensation, and independent supervisory enforcement. Ultimately, this redesigned framework offers a transformative legal blueprint to strengthen judicial enforceability and guarantee equitable access to healthcare facilities.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
