Victor Santoso Tandiasa as the attorney of the Petitioners delivering the principal points of the petition for the judicial review of the Law on Road Traffic and Land Transportation (LLAJ)  on Wednesday (11/4) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The Toyota Soluna Community (TSC) and individual petitioners revised the petition for the judicial review of Law No. 22/2009 on Road Traffic and Land Transportation (LLAJ Law). The second hearing of case No. 23/PUU-XVI/2018 was held on Wednesday (11/4) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court.

The Petitioners explained some revisions to the petition. Petitioner II, originally an Individual petitioner named Reza Aditya who works as an online transport driver, was changed to Irvan, who works as an online motorcycle taxi driver. The Petitioner argued that he had utilized GPS technology through a smart phone to determine the location of the service user and get to that location. However, with the statement of law enforcement that they will fine or restrict motorcycle taxi drivers in using the facility while driving, the Petitioner will be threatened by criminal sanction as regulated in the provision of the norm of Article 283 of the LLAJ Law. For that reason, the provision of the a quo norm along the phrase "using telephone" may be interpreted at will by the law enforcement. Therefore, this implementation of the norm has led to legal uncertainty.

"Therefore, it is important for the Court to interpret the phrase "using telephone" in the provision of the a quo norm to exclude for the use of satellite-based navigation systems contained in the smart phone," said Rahmat Cahyono as the attorney before the chairman of the session Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto.

One of the attorneys of other Petitioners, Victor Santoso Tandiasa, explained that in the posita his clients had changed the reference of the a quo from Article 28G to Article 1 paragraph (3) and Article 28D paragraph (1). There is a slight overlap, Victor explained, on the application of the norm so his clients saw some doubt in the implementation of the law. "Based on the Decision of the Constitutional Court No. 005/PUU-III/2005 that reads, “"Doubt in the implementation of a law will bring about legal uncertainty in practice." Such circumstances can lead to violations of constitutional rights," Victor explained.

The Petitioners claimed constitutional rights with the coming into effect of Article 106 paragraph (1) and Article 283 of the LLAJ Law. Elucidation to Article 106 paragraph (1) of the LLAJ Law reads, "In full concentration shall mean any person driving the Motorized Vehicle with full attention and is not disturbed due to sickness, being tired, sleepy, using telephone or watching television or video installed in the Vehicle, or drinking alcoholic or drugs thereby affecting the ability in driving the Vehicle." 

Meanwhile, Article 283 of the LLAJ Law reads, “Anyone who drives a motorized vehicle abnormally on the road and commits other activities or being affected by a circumstance which causes a disturbance to driving concentration on road as referred to in article 106 paragraph (1) shall be punished with imprisonment at the maximum period of 3 (three) months or penalty at the maximum amount of Rp750,000 (seven hundred and fifty thousand rupiah).”

The Petitioners consider the provisions conditionally contradictory to the 1945 Constitution, especially Article 1 paragraph (3) and Article 28D paragraph (1). The Petitioners reason that the phrase "using telephone" in the Elucidation to Article 106 paragraph (1) of the LLAJ Law is one of the reasons causing disturbance do driving concentration of motorists should have a clear purpose. Thus, there will be no multiple interpretations in its enforcement. 

At the end of the hearing, Justice Aswanto approved the evidence presented by the Petitioners. It will then be used as report material at the Justices’ Deliberation Meeting (RPH). Therefore, the Petitioners are expected to wait for news from the Court\'s Registrar on the continuation of hearing. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)