---

A witness presented by the Applicant who represented APAKSINDO, Sjahrial Ong when delivering his testimony in the judicial review session on Act of Traffic and Road Transportation, Wednesday (11/3) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR / Ganie.

Indonesian Contractors Employers Association (APAKSINDO) justified that heavy machineries such as bulldozers, excavators, and others is a construction tool and do not use the roads like motor vehicles. Therefore, the machineries cannot be categorized into vehicles.

This statement is delivered by Syahrial as APAKSINDO representative on judicial review session on Act No. 21 Year 2009 of Traffic and Road Transportation (Undang-Undang Lalu Lintas dan Angkutan Jalan –UU LLAJ) that remained held by the Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi –MK) on Wednesday (11/3) at Session Room, the Constitutional Court Building. The case registered on No. 3/PUU-XIII/2015 was filed by three contractors companies, PT Tunas Jaya Pratama, PT Multi Prima Universal, and PT Marga Maju Japan.

"Heavy machineries leased by APAKSINDO never use the highway like vehicles that listed in the Act of Traffic and Road Transportation (UU LLAJ). When it is moved, heavy machineries will be transported using trailer and not allowed it to run itself on the roads because it will damage the machine itself, "said Syahrial as Applicant’s Witness on the session led by Chief Justice Arief Hidayat.

Syahrial pointed out, heavy machineries that are currently operating in Jalan Sudirman, Jakarta, does not mean they using the roads. They are doing construction works, such as the monorail that being built at Jalan Sudirman. Moreover, the structure and shape of heavy machineries are different with motor vehicles, so both cannot be equated. "Bulldozer and other machineries have no tires, as in motor vehicles. So it should not include into motor vehicle categories, "he added..

Beside presented a witness, the Applicant also presented experts. One of it is Susy Fatena Rostiyanti, a civil engineering lecturer at Universitas Bakrie. In her explanation, Susy explained the differences between heavy machineries with motor vehicles. According to her, heavy machineries has no speed measurement such possessed by the vehicles. “The noise generated by heavy machineries also far beyond the vehicles,” said her.   

Besides that, the vehicles’ user called driver/rider and shall possessed driver license, so the machineries’ user called as operators. Operators also have license in form of certificate from the Manpower Minister (Menteri Ketenagakerjaan –Menaker) which obtained through several trainings. “So, from some differences mentioned, it can be concluded that heavy machineries are not equal with vehicles. The machineries is only tools for helping people to build construction and the movement is static,” said her.

Similar things also stated by other experts, Suwardjoko Warpani. As a planology enginerring expert, he explained the differences between vehicles with heavy machineries. He justified machineries are not identical with vehicles, such in terms of appearance, function, design, and feature. “Heavy machineries dimension is also unqualified to run on the road. They are also cannot met the vehicles’ qualifications as determined on Act of Traffic and Road Transportation. Moreover, they are also cannot met vehicles’ features, as regulated on Act of Traffic and Road Transportation. Although the heavy machineries has combustion machine, they are not regarded as motor vehicles,” said him. In the Applicant’s petition the Applicant –represented by Ali Nurdin as their attorney– felt their constitutionality rights was harmed by the implementation of the Explanation of Article (Penjelasan Pasal) 47  (2) letter e part c Act of Traffic and Road Transportation (UU LLAJ) that said: “Those who regarded as ‘specialty vehicles’ are vehicles which specially-built that have particular functions and designs, such as: c. heavy machineries such as: bulldozers, tractors, compactors (stoomwaltz), forklifts, loaders, excavators, and cranes”. UU LLAJ classified heavy machineries as motor vehicles. “Equalization of heavy machineries with vehicles resulted on the Applicant cannot work (on vehicles-prohibited area),” stated him in front of Judge Panel led by Constitutional Judge Wahiduddin Adams.  

According to the Applicant, heavy machineries are production tools, as their function. It is different with vehicles that its function as transportation medium, either transporting things or people. In other word, heavy machineries never change its function to transportation medium. The Applicant possesses and/or manages heavy machineries, e.g.: cranes, compactors, excavators, vibrators, dump trucks, wheel loaders, bulldozers, tractors, forklifts, and batching plants that used for their commercial activity,   .

By generalizing between heavy machineries with vehicles, so the machineries are required to follow type test and periodic test as well as vehicles. The Applicant argued that the test requirement as regulated on the provisions is impossible and never been met by the machineries because the characteristic of it is never be same with vehicles.

The machineries is required to have vehicles feature as regulated on UU LLAJ, however the machineries possessed by the Applicant doesn’t have a jacking tool and wheel opener because it has no tires. Instead, the machineries are also should be registered and identified as well as vehicles as regulated on Article 64 UU LLAJ which principally vehicles should be registered in order to obtain test type certificate, that machineries cannot conduct it. (Lulu Anjarsari/Prasetyo Adi N) 

---