---

Photo PR/Ganie

 

 

 

Online transportation drivers and providers Aries Rinaldi, Rudi Prastowo and Dimas Sotya Nugraha challenged Article 139 (4) Act of Road Traffic and Vehicles (UU LLAJ). Representing by Applicants’ Attorney Ferdian Susanto, they delivered their objection about the Article that didn’t mention about online transportation service, on Monday (16/9).

In the session of Case No. 78/PUU-XIV/2016, the Applicants argued their constitutional rights were harmed by the Act. Article 139 (4) Act of Road Traffic and Vehicles stated “The provision of public transportation is done by state-owned enterprise, local-owned enterprise, and or other law entities according to the laws and regulations” (“Penyediaan jasa angkutan umum dilaksanakan oleh badan usaha milik negara, badan usaha milik daerah, dan/atau badan hukum lain sesuai dengan ketentuan peraturan perundang-undangan”).

The Applicants argued the Article only mention about state-owned enterprise, local-owned enterprise, and or other law entities, while in fact, online transportation services were massively developed recently.

Moreover, the Applicants also considered Transportation Minister Regulation No. 32 Year 2016 has harmed their rights. “By the Regulation, Applicants are potentially considered breaking the law and could be ticketed or sanctioned by other detrimental actions,” said Susanto.

Thus, the Applicants requested the Court to interpret Article 139 by adding the phrase “….including individuals that provide online transportation services” (“peorangan penyedia jasa transportasi berbasis online”)

Justice Panel Input

Responding the petition, Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna as panel member asked the Applicants to elaborate their constitutional loss comprehensively. “I assess that this petition is not sharp enough (on elaborating constitutional loss, ed.),” said him.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Aswanto as panel head argued that the Applicants were focused too much on their loss caused by Transportation Minister Regulation of Passanger Transport Implementation by Motor Vehicles without Route. Aswanto assessed that the Regulation directly implements Government Regulation No. 74 Year 2014 of Road Vehicles, instead of implements the Act. “It is incorrect if you directly connects the Regulation with Article 139,” said him.

Aswanto asserted that review on Government Regulation is the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction, not the Constitutional Court. He advised the Applicants to revise the petition if they still insist to process their petition in the Constitutional Court. (ars/lul/pan)

---