Panel revision hearing of judicial review of the Road Law, Wednesday (21/3) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

Petition revision hearing for judicial review of Law No. 38/2004 on Roads was held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Wednesday (21/3) afternoon. The Petitioners are Moh. Taufik Makarao and Abdul Rahman Sabar who were represented by their attorney, Arifudin.

In the hearing, the Petitioners revised the part on the authority of the Constitutional Court (MK). They explained that the Constitutional Court has the right to interpret provisions of articles of the law in order to conform to the value of the Constitution. "The interpretation of the Constitutional Court of the constitutionality of the articles and the laws is the only interpretation that has the power of law," Arifudin explained.

Furthermore, there was also addition to the legal standing and the constitutional damages suffered by the Petitioners. "We strengthened the legal standing of the Petitioners and the constitutional damages of the Petitioners due to the enactment of this law," Arifudin said about Case No. 15/PUU-XVI/2018.

In addition, in the second part of the petition, Arifudin said, the Petitioners explained that they have been users of toll roads that have been active since 1994 until today. Almost every time they travel, from their residences to their workplaces or other places, the Petitioners always use toll roads as the main transportation, with specified fees.

"The specified fees for toll roads by the Petitioners are also [paid] by the wider community who use toll roads, so the Petitioners consider that toll fees imposed [on] the Petitioners as well as the wider community are never questioned. Whereas the fees of using toll roads without any clarity on the expenditure deadline have resulted in the uncertainty of the cost that is the responsibility of the Petitioners as well as toll road users," Arifudin said.

The Petitioners who work as civil servants review Article 50 paragraph (6) of the Road Law that reads, "Toll road concession is granted within a certain period of time to fulfill the return on investment and fair profits for toll road business."

In the petition, the Petitioners also explained the concession under Article 1 paragraph (20) of Law No. 30/2014 on Government Administration that is understood as transfer of power from government to parties other than the government to manage public facilities. The Petitioners consider the phrase "within a certain period of time" in Article 50 paragraph (6) of the Road Law not having a precise and clear time frame, which could result in harm to the state and society.

The Petitioners consider their evaluation of the article is supported by Article 39 paragraph (6) of the Administrative Government Law that reads "Permit, Dispensation, or Concession shall not cause any loss to the State." Therefore, the Petitioners request the Constitutional Court declare the article contrary to the 1945 Constitution if the phrase "within a certain period of time" is not interpreted "within a period of maximum 20 years" to meet investment and profit funds for toll road managers. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)