Sigit Sudarmadji as Applicant was delivering main revisions of his petition at judicial review session on Act of Aviation (UU Penerbangan), Wednesday (24/3) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ganie

The Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi –MK) was held a judicial review further session on Act No. 1 Year 2009 of Aviation (Undang-Undang Penerbangan) with petition revision agenda on Wednesday afternoon (25/3), at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Case registered on No. 29/PUU-XIII/2015 was filed by Sigit Sudarmaji whose constitutional rights detrimental by minimum number of aircraft ownership and control regulation, as stipulated on Article 118 (1) letter b and Article 118 (2) Act a quo. Unaccompanied with his attorney, the Applicant delivered his petition revision by clarify legal standing and strengthen petition argumentation as advised by judges at previous panel session. 

Related with legal standing, Sigit delivered that he was an individual citizen who willing to establish scheduled commercial airline. Moreover, Sigit continued, he was also in capacity as aviation service user and had engaged in aviation sector for a long time. 

Related with his constitutional loss in capacity as an individual who willing to establish airline, Sigit felt his chance closed and had discriminated. It was because there was a difficult requirement, an obligation to have at least 5 units aircraft and control at least 5 units aircraft with the type of aircraft that support business concern in accordance with routes served, as stipulated on Act a quo.  

Further in his capacity as airline service user, Sigit felt constrained in choosing schedules, routes and tickets fee. It was because no new arlines company emerged..

“Applicant felt detrimental with limited choice or potential reduction occurred for Applicant as airlines service user in choosing schedules, routes, and or tickets fee, because no new aircraft or a potential airline companies closure which yet cannot fulfilled the ownership requirement,” explained Sigit whose status as Transportation Ministry civil servant.

Moreover in his capacity as a person who engaged on aviation sector for a long time, Sigit stated that the provision of aviation ownership and control as stipulated on Act a quo was contrary to independence, efficiency, and sustainability principles as mandated by Article 33 (4) the 1945 Constitution (Undang-Undang Dasar 1945 –UUD 1945). Therefore Sigit on his petitum revision asked to judge panel for granted his petition and stated that the Act reviewed contrary to the 1945 Constitution and also had no legal binding.

“First, granting petition on judicial review on Act considered, second stating Article 118 paragraph (1) letter b and paragraph (2) and so on contrary to the 1945 Constitution, stating Article 118 paragraph (1) letter b and paragraph (2) and so on have no legal binding with all legal consequences,” said Sigit in front of judge panel led by Constitutional Judge Maria Farida Indrati. After validated the evidence, Maria Farida said to the Applicant that panel judges will report the result to the Judge’s Consultative Meeting (Rapat Pemusyawaratan Hakim –RPH). (Triya IR/Prasetyo Adi N.)