Preliminary hearing of judicial review of Road Traffic and Land Transportation Law (LLAJ Law), Tuesday (19/12) at the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

The preliminary hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 22/2009 on Road Traffic and Land Transportation (Law LLAJ) was held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Tuesday (19/12) afternoon. The Petitioners of Case No. 97/PUU-XV/2017 are Etty Afiyati Hentihu, Agung Prastio Wibowo, Mahestu Hari Nugroho, Dodi Ilham, and Lucky Rachman Fauzi.

The Petitioners questioned Article 151 letter a of the LLAJ Law that states that one of the public transportation services not in trajectories is the taxi. Article 151 of the Law on LLAJ states, "Passenger transportation service by public Motorized Vehicles not in trajectories as referred to in Article 140 letter b shall consist of: a. Passenger transportation by taxi...."

In their petition, the Petitioners explained that the a quo provision has not accommodated the online taxi as one of the transportation services. This is considered detrimental to the Petitioners due to the exclusion of the online taxi in the a quo provision.

"Making online taxis illegal, prone to raids, and there are many online taxi bans in various cities in Indonesia. This potentially harms the rights of the Petitioners to earn a living. The implementation in the transport service providers will be detrimental to the Petitioners, where online transportation includes the taxi service. The service that uses online facilities is also not in trajectories," Ferdian said.

Therefore, the Petitioners requested the revocation of Article 151 letter a of the LLAJ Law. In addition, they requested that the Court include the online taxi service in the LLAJ Law.

Justices’ Advice

Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams as Chairman of the Panel observed that there was an overlap between the legal standing of the Petitioners and the principal arguments of the case. "For example, page 11 point 8, wherein the Petitioners argue about the impairment of rights, especially for Petitioner I. Then page 18, 21, section c, the Petitioners once again argue about the loss of rights," Justice Wahiduddin explained.

Then on the legal standing of the Petitioners, Justice Wahiduddin explained that it is not strong. So, he requested that the legal standing be revised. "The Petitioners state they are drivers in an application-based transportation or an online taxi service. However, the evidence presented by the Petitioners is not enough. The Panel of Judges examined the P-4 evidence that the Petitioners have submitted, but it is not sufficient to show that the Petitioners is a member [of the service]," he advised. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)