Government\'s statement delivered by Expert Staff of the Minister of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform Umar Aris in the judicial review hearing of t Road Traffic and Land Transportation Law (LLAJ Law) on Monday (22/1) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

Judicial review of Law No. 22/2009 on Road Traffic and Land Transportation (LLAJ Law) was held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Monday (22/1) afternoon. The hearing of case No. 97/PUU-XV/2017 was to hear the statement of the Government represented by an expert staff of Minister of Administrative and Bureaucracy Reform, Umar Aris. 

The Government explained that Regulation of the Minister of Transportation (Permenhub) No. PM 108/2017 has set in details the implementation of public transportation of non-route public vehicles. It includes provisions on the transportation of persons by taxi and transport to certain destinations that include special-rent transport. "In this case the technology-based application taxi referred to by the Petitioners has been arranged into special-rent transport," said Umar Aris to the Panel of Justices led by Constitutional Court Justice Wahiduddin Adams. 

The Government asserted that special-rent transport is included in the type of passenger transportation service with specific purposes. As set out in Article 151 letter b of the LLAJ Law and the elucidation to Article 41 letter b of Government Regulation Number 74/2014. "Therefore, the provisions of Article 151 letter a of the LLAJ Law do not require any interpretation. Even, if the a quo provisions were interpreted, it would cause legal uncertainty," Umar said. 

Umar explained that the regulation on technology-based taxi cabs as referred to by the Petitioners have been regulated in the nomenclature of Special-Rent Transportation, which is public transportation with black registration plates whose order uses information technology-based applications. 

"LLAJ Law, PP No. 74/2014, and Permenhub PM No. 108/2017 are a form of state presence in providing legal certainty and are in accordance with the times and provide business protection to all business actors, including the Petitioners in running their business, and prevent social turmoil and horizontal conflicts in order to safeguard the national interest," said Umar. 

Therefore, according to the Government, Article 151 letter a of the LLAJ Law has provided legal certainty in accordance with the times and not contradictory to Article 1 paragraph (3), Article 27 paragraph (2), and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. 

The Petitioners are Etty Afiyati Hentihu, Agung Prastio Wibowo, Mahestu Hari Nugroho, etc. They work as online taxi drivers and question 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 reads, "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. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)