Principal petitioners and legal counsel attending the judicial review hearing of the Law on Road Traffic and Land Transportation on Monday (4/6) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

The Petitioners\' legal counsel for the review of Law Number 22 Year 2009 on Road Traffic and Transportation (UU LLAJ), Muhammad Jamsari, delivered a number of revisions in the follow-up hearing in the Constitutional Court (MK) on Monday (4/6). The revisions of the petition of case No. 41/PUU-XVI/2018, among others, are related to the article being reviewed and the impairment suffered. 

Jamsari revealed that the Petitioners replace the article to review, originally Article 138 paragraph (3), to Article 47 paragraph (3) of the Law on Road Traffic and Transportation. In their petitum, the Petitioners requested that Article 47 Paragraph (3) of the LLAJ Law be declared contradictory to the 1945 Constitution as long as it is not interpreted “including motorcycles that function as individual motorized vehicles and public motorized vehicles or at least be decided with a constitutional conditional ruling.” 

"If Their Excellencies Panel of Justices of the Constitutional Court are of the opinion that Article 47 paragraph (3) of Law Number 2 of 2009 on Road Traffic and Transportation shall remain constitutional and having binding legal force as long as it is interpreted as ‘including motorcycles as individual motorized vehicles and public motorized vehicles,’" said Jamsari. 

The Petitioners that are affiliated with to the Tim Pembela Rakyat Pengguna Transportasi Online or the Online Transportation Action Committee (KATO) review Article 138 paragraph (3) of the LLAJ Law that reads, "Public transport of people and/or goods can only be done by Public Motorized Vehicles.” 

KATO represents 50 petitioners from various professional backgrounds—online ojek drivers, organizing committee of trade/labor unions, private employees, entrepreneurs, journalists, students, and users of the application-based (online) ojek service.

In their petition, the Petitioners said that that the existence of the online ojek is an actual fact. They explained the advantages of the online ojek that not only offers transport services but also shopping as well as food ordering services. The Petitioners believe that at present, the a quo article does not provide constitutional guarantee for the Petitioners, both as users and drivers of the online ojek. On the contrary, the a quo article is seen by the Petitioners as potentially triggering a rejection to the existence of the online ojek. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)