---

Online ojek protesting at the Constitutional Court Building, Monday (21/5). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

The provision on public transport as specified in Article 138 paragraph (3) of Law No. 22/2009 on Road Traffic and Land Transportation (LLAJ Law) is being reviewed materially by 50 individual petitioners. The first hearing of case No. 41/PUU-XVI/2018 took place on Monday (21/5).

Muhammad Jamsari, legal counsel of Said Iqbal and others, explained that the petitioners are online ojek (motorcycle taxi) drivers who use the applications Gojek, Grab, and Uber, as well as the organizing committee of trade/labor unions, private employees, entrepreneurs, journalists, students, and housewives who are users (consumers) of the online ojek service. The Petitioners argue that Article 138 paragraph (3) of the LLAJ Law has impaired their constitutional rights because it does not include the online ojek as public transportation. Article 138 Paragraph (3) of the LLAJ Law reads, "Public transport of people and/or goods can only be done by Public Motorized Vehicles.”

The petitioners reasoned that in actuality, the existence of online ojek cannot be denied in meeting the demand of society/consumers on the needs of online public transport of people and/or goods. Society is also happy and helped by the operation of the online ojek.

"So far in Law Number 22 of 2009, (the online ojek) has not been recognized. What is recognized is four-wheeled vehicles. Two-wheeled vehicles have not been accommodated, has not been recognized legally. This has created a feeling of discrimination for fellow drivers of online ojek. They should also have equal rights as citizens," Jamsari explained.

Ironically, Jamsari added, drivers of online ojek fear that in the field they will clash with the offline motorcycle taxi drivers. This clash is because there has not been any legal basis regulating online ojek.

Therefore, in the petitum, the Petitioners requested that Article 138 paragraph (3) of the LLAJ Law be declared contradictory to the 1945 Constitution and having no binding legal force as long as it is not interpreted as \'public transport of people and/or goods is carried out by public motorized vehicles and/or two-wheeled motorized vehicles belonging to individuals used for public transport of people and/or goods with fees that utilize information technology-based applications by ordering online to accommodate accessibility for the public.’

Sharpening the Legal Standing

Responding to the arguments of the petition, Constitutional Court Justice Wahiduddin Adams advised the Petitioners further sharpen their legal standing. "You have presented and elaborated your legal standing in this petition in details. But later it must be reinforced, sharpened, or deepened following the Constitutional Court decisions on legal standing," said Justice Wahiduddin.

In addition, Justice Wahiduddin advised the Petitioners to sharpen and deepen the explanation of the Petitioners’ constitutional impairment, both actual and potential, and then link it to the petition as well as the explanation of some regulations already in practice in several cities.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo observed the Petitioners’ petition’s format. "Although this format suits your petition, the substance is too much, going in circles. Actually, if you observe more deeply, it can substantially be compacted into a few pages only; 10 to 15 pages is enough because the content is actually simple," said Justice Suhartoyo.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat said that the LLAJ Law was created to regulate things that are general. "It is impossible that the law then, upon your request, be cut into little parts just to accommodate your own interests. If your request is granted, what about four-wheeled vehicles? Article 138 paragraph (3) of the LLAJ Law would not be able to accommodate four-wheeled vehicles. It would be unfair to four-wheeled vehicles and to [public transport] that is not online," he said. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---