Panel hearing of judicial review revision of Constitutional Court Law on Monday (30/10) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court Building. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The Constitutional Court (MK) once again held a hearing to review Article 55 of Law No. 24/2003 on the Constitutional Court, Monday (30/10) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. The case No. 79/PUU-XV/2017 was petitioned by the Organization of Land Transportation Owners (Organda), Chairman of Organda Central Executive Board Andrianto Djokosoetomo and Secretary General of Organda Central Executive Board Ateng Aryono.

In the revision hearing of the petition, the Petitioner through legal counsel Ai Latifah Fardhiyah delivered some revision, among others related to the legal standing of the Petitioner. The Petitioner explains their legal standing as a private legal entity, namely the Organization of Land Transportation Owners. In this case, the Petitioner is represented by the Chairman of Organda Central Executive Board and the Secretary General of the Organda Central Executive Board so they have legal standing and constitutional rights.

In addition, the Petitioner also stated that the Supreme Court through Decision No. 37/P/HUM/2017 has created the potentials for disorder and uncontrolled movement of non-fixed-route public-transportation. Therefore, the Petitioner claims that it has caused various issues, among them the lack of certainty over the legal accountability for the poor quality of public transport service, uncertainty of the number of business actors, barometer of service quality, and control mechanisms against violations of the law, as well as caused potential unhealthy competitions.

"This condition positions the legal entity Organda in an unhealthy business situation and uncompetitive with actors of the non-fixed-route public-transportation," explained Ai Latifah reading the petition revision in the hearing led by Constitutional Justice Manahan M.P. Sitompul in the presence of Constitution Justices Maria Farida Indrati and Aswanto.

Ai also mentioned that the contradiction of the decisions of the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court has caused legal uncertainty for Organda members who ultimately are in an unhealthy business competition with actors of the non-fixed-route public-transportation who have been released from legal obligations. "The Supreme Court Decision No. 37/P/HUM/2017 will increase illegal online transport," said Ai Latifa.

The Petitioner argues that the Constitutional Court has decided on the review of Article 139 paragraph (4) of Law No. 22/2009 on Traffic and Land Transportation (LLAJ Law) vide Decision of the Constitutional Court No. 78/PUU-XIV/2016 on the requirement for online transport service providers to have legal entities. The Petitioner claimed that the Constitutional Court ruling strengthens Article 139 paragraph (4) of the LLAJ Law, which is then implemented in the Regulation of the Minister of Transportation No. PM.26/2017 on the Organization of Non-Fixed-Route Public-Transportation Services (Permenhub No. PM.26/2017). However, the Supreme Court through Decision No. 37/P/HUM/2017 states that Permenhub No. PM.26/2017 is declared to have no binding legal force. According to the Petitioners, Supreme Court Decision No. 37/P/HUM/2017 is substantively contradictory to the Decision of the Constitutional Court No. 78/PUU-XIV/2016. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)