Panel revision hearing of the Judicial Review of the Road Traffic and Transport Law and the ITE Law through video conference, Monday (6/8) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The Constitutional Court (MK) once again held the judicial review of Law No. 22/2009 on Road Traffic and Transportation (LLAJ Law) and Law No. 19/2016 on ITE on Monday (6/8). The second hearing of case No. 64/PUU-XVI/2018 was to hear the revision of the petition.

Muhammad Rahmani as Petitioner explained that he had revised the petition according to the suggestion of the Panel of Justices. The Petitioner said that he had revised the petitum. "The establishment of the ITE Law does not meet the provision of the formation of laws that are not in accordance with the norms of the 1945 Constitution or only based on political interests to reduce political pressure on President Joko Widodo over the high unemployment rate and chaotic national football. Granting the Petitioners\' petition for the whole, Article 157 of the LLAJ Law contradicts the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia does not have binding force," he stated through video conference.

Conventional motorcycle taxi drivers from Batam filed a judicial review of Article 157 of the LLAJ Law and Article 40 paragraphs (1), (2a), and (2b) of the ITE Law. Rahmani and Marganti as the Petitioners who explained that according to the a quo provision, two-wheeled motorized vehicles are not included in the category of public transport both in trajectories and not in trajectories. Meanwhile, according to the Petitioners, long before the provision, motorcycle taxis already existed and bicycle ojek in some areas still exists today. Thus, the Petitioners feel that their profession is seen as illegal by the Government or the authorities. 

The Petitioners further explained in their petition that this provision had eliminated or ignored the constitutional basis in delegating authority to regulate. According to the Petitioners, the provision states explicitly that the Minister has the authority to regulate, while in the Constitution the Minister is not. In addition, the Petitioners further elaborated that the provision of Article 40 paragraphs (1), (2a), and (2b) of the ITE Law have given a different opinion on the application or use of the Law where the LLAJ Law is at the same level as the ITE Law. The a quo article was the basis for the development of the Minister Regulation No. 108/2017 that replaced Minister Regulation No. 26/2016, which replaced Minister Regulation No. 32/2016.

Materially, this greatly affects those who work as conventional motorcycle drivers who wait at a base around housing neighborhoods. Due to online transportation, they hardly get any passengers every day because their fees are more expensive than that of online motorcycle taxis. In the petitum, the Petitioners requested that the Constitutional Court declare the a quo law contrary to the 1945 Constitution and not having binding legal force. (ARS/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)