---

Petitioner\\'s Attorney Muhammad Sholeh submitting the petition principal for judicial review of law on insurance compensation for accident victims on Thursday (2/11) in Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

The Constitutional Court (MK) held the first trial of the judicial review of the Elucidation of Article 4 paragraph (1) of Law Number 34 Year 1964 concerning Road Accident Fund, Thursday (2/11). The case Number 88/PUU-XV/2017 reviews the regulation on insurance compensation for accident victims.

Maria Theresia Asteriasanti, a resident of Surabaya, requested that the Constitutional Court declare the phrase “luar” (outside) in the Elucidation to Article 4 paragraph (1) of Law No. 34/1964 having no binding legal force. The Elucidation to Article 4 paragraph (1) of Law No. 34/1964 reads:

"Those who receive compensation under this Law are those who are on the road outside of the means of transportation that caused the accident. However, if the victim has been compensated under the Law on Road Accident Fund Number 33 of 1964, the compensation shall be granted only once, that is by the compulsory road accident fund referred to in the Law. " 

In her petition, the Petitioner feels severely disadvantaged because PT Jasa Raharja interpreted the Elucidation of Article 4 paragraph (1) of Law No. 34/1964 as not applying to single-vehicle accidents. The Petitioner is the wife of Rokhim, victim of an accident who died on July 24, 2017. The Petitioner’s husband was returning home from work and suffered a single-vehicle accident. However, the Petitioner could not seek insurance compensation for the death of her husband. State-owned insurance company Jasa Raharja claimed that, in accordance with the Elucidation to Article 4 paragraph (1) of Law No. 34/1964, those entitled for compensation persons who were \\'outside the means of transportation\\' [in an accident]. It made the Petitioner confused as to the meaning of \\'outside the means of transportation.’ "The Petitioner believes that the phrase \\'outside\\' the constitutional rights of the Petitioner, who should receive compensation from Jasa Raharja, who ultimately did not obtain compensation from Jasa Raharja," she explained.

The Petitioner also argues that every year she pays Compulsory Contribution of Road Traffic Accident Fund (SWDKLLJ) that is included in vehicle registration (STNK) tax. The Petitioner’s side claims that this has created legal uncertainty and that there is no legal protection for victims including the Petitioner. In fact, Sholeh continued, the Petitioner annually pays taxes, but there is no legal certainty in terms of her being given compensation by Jasa Raharja. The Petitioner’s side claims that the Elucidation to Article 4 paragraph (1), especially along the phrase “outside,” contrary to Article 28D paragraph (1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.

"It is strange that every vehicle is required to pay for insurance, but in the event of a single-vehicle accident, [Jasa Raharja] says that it is single-vehicle accident, not [public transport], in which case different from a crash involving 2 cars or vehicles, which are covered by Jasa Raharja," she said.

Justices’ Advice

In response to the request, Constitutional Justice Maria Farida Indrati recommended that the word \\'phrase\\' in the Peitioned be replaced by \\'word\\'. She stated that \\'phrase\\' refers to sentence, while the Petitioner questions the word ‘luar’ (\\'outside\\').

"In addition, the Petitioner should pay attention to typos. For example, on page 6 point 7 number 7 that every motor vehicle owner is obliged to pay a Compulsory Contribution of Road Traffic Accident Fund, which is called SWDKLLJ, at the amount of Rp35,000 but you wrote Rp35,000,000," she said.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra requested that the Petitioner add an explanation regarding the position of the elucidation to the article in the study of legislation, because the Petitioner questions the Elucidation to Article 4 paragraph (1), not Article 4 paragraph (1) of Law No. 34/1964. "Well, there are a lot of books to be read that explain that the explanation should not be so-and-so. For example, one cannot add new norms and so on. This will clarify the Petition," he explained. (ARS/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---