---

The DPR’s testimony presented by Commission member Abdul Hakim at judicial review on Act of Aviation, on Monday (4/5) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ifa

 

 

Further judicial review on Act No 1 Year 2009 of Aviation (Undang-Undang Penerbangan –UU Penerbangan) was held by the Constitutional Court with the agenda hearing the House of Representatives’ (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat –DPR) testimony, and Experts as well as Witnesses testimony on Monday (4/5) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. The case registered with number 29/PUU-XIII/2015 was filed by a civil servant of Transportation Ministry Sigit Sudarmadji who felt detrimental by the enactment of Article 118 (1) letter b and Article 118 (2) Act a quo, in which Sudarmadji willing to establish a commercial scheduled airline. The provision regulated the minimum number of aircraft control and ownership which should possessed by commercial scheduled airlines.  

At the session, House of Representatives’ Commission III member Abdul Hakim represented the House of Representatives. The Government also presented an expert of aviation law H.K. Martono and a pilot S. Nababan as witness for giving the testimony.

According Abdul Hakim, aviation sector had its own characteristic and advantages. Therefore, it needed development with attention to technology, capital, management, and service. Moreover, Abdul said that aviation sector demanded optimum safety and security. Therefore, it needed to be organized in an integrated system in order to provide empowerment and usefulness. Abdul added, Act a quo applied a principle which also applied in other countries. The principle was the airlines needed to be powerfully compete in domestic, regional, and global market as well as supported national economic development; rather than abundant in number.    

“Act of Aviation applies a principle which is also applied by other countries: the airlines no need to be abundant in number. It is better to have small yet strong airlines in order to compete in domestic, regional, and global market as well as support national economy development. Small yet strong is better,” Abdul explained at the plenary session led by Deputy Chief Justice Anwar Usman.

Related with the petition points, Abdul said that the restriction of minimum aircraft on Act a quo was aimed at empowerment of airlines industry. The provision was expected to manifest transparent and accountable business mechanism. Moreover, Abdul said that the Applicant filed a matter of implementation norm, instead of constitutionality norm.

"So, the matter delivered by the Applicant are in fact, not a matter of norm constitutionality, in our view, it is instead a matter of norms implementation following with technical, infrastructure and policies preparation of the stakeholders which relates to the implementation of airline business," explained Abdul.

Aircraft Ownership is Absolute Requirement

In line with the House of Representatives’ opinion, an expert of aviation law H.K. Martono was also delivered that the philosophy of Act of Aviation was small yet strong airlines were better than abundant airlines. According to Martono, Act a quo regulated the policy of airlines establishment gradually from non-scheduled flight airlines to scheduled flight airlines. It was intended to accommodate low-budget stakeholders in establishing non-scheduled flight airlines.

Moreover, Martono said the ownership of aircraft unit in aviation business was absolutely needed because the aircraft unit was a main factor of aviation business.

“The requirement of aircraft unit ownership is absolutely needed because the aircraft unit is a main factor of Act of Aviation. No airlines without aircraft,” said Martono who also a law lecturer of Universitas Tarumanegara.

Moreover, Martono said that the requirement of aircraft ownership was an open policy which approved by the DPR and the Government. It was approved after noticed the survival aspect of airlines, the availability of national air transport, and the public participation. “"The requirement of aircraft ownership is an open policy approved by the DPR with the government based on the authority regulated by law. After considering all aspects to ensure the survival of airlines, the availability of national air transportation, and the opportunity for public participation in the air transport operation, "said Martono.

Responding to the expert’s statements, the Applicant Sigit Sudarmadji asked an expert related to the policy of gradual airlines establishment from non-scheduled flights to the scheduled flight. According to Sudarmadji, non-scheduled flights and scheduled flights were two types of flights which set separately. Answering that question, Martono explained that the gradual concept was delivered by him when he became the guest speaker at the discussion of Act of Aviation draft. According to him, the first stage was non-scheduled flight airlines because it was easier and only needed three aircrafts, then to scheduled airlines.

“Fortunately, I was the guest speaker in the discussion. So, generally the first stage is non-scheduled flight airlines because the requirement only needs three aircrafts; owned one & two controlled. If it is run well, then it allowed for scheduled flight airlines and so on. Generally that is the mindset. Thus, we accommodate in the discussion of Act-making," said Martono. (Triya IR/Prasetyo Adi N.)

---