Petitioner’s attorney Victor Santoso Sandiasa in the ruling hearing of the judicial review of the Law on Traffic and Land Transportation, Wednesday (30/1) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The Constitutional Court (MK) rejected the entire petition for the judicial review of the Law No. 22/2009 on Road Traffic and Land Transportation (LLAJ Law) in the ruling hearing on Wednesday (30/1/2019) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. “The verdict adjudicated, rejects the Petitioners’ petition for the whole,” said Chief Justice Anwar Usman on case No. 23/PUU-XVI/2018.

Toyota Soluna Community (TSC) and online taxi driver Irvan had felt that their constitutional rights had been impaired by the enactment of Article 106 paragraph (1) and Article 283 of the LLAJ Law. They considered the provisions conditionally contradictory to the 1945 Constitution, especially Article 1 paragraph (3) and Article 28D paragraph (1). The Petitioners reasoned that the phrase "using telephone" in the Elucidation to Article 106 paragraph (1) of the LLAJ Law was one of the reasons causing disturbance do driving concentration of motorists should have a clear purpose. Thus, there would be no multiple interpretations in its enforcement.

In the legal considerations read by Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams, the Court confirmed understanding of the intent of the General Elucidation to the LLAJ Law, which in essence was to reduce the number of increasing traffic accidents. The objective is none other than creating and guaranteeing traffic order and safety. According to the Court, he added, the LLAJ Law was a means to bring society towards a better life. That is because the face and legal culture of a country are reflected in the behavior of the people in traffic. Using a telephone, he added, was only one of the things that could affect the driver\'s ability to drive the vehicle in full concentration. Referring to the Indonesian Language Dictionary (KBBI), the word "using" is interpreted as using and actively. Thus, the formulation of the a quo norm is quite clear.

"The legislators only formulated a general explanation regarding causes that can affect the ability of motorists to drive vehicles in full concentration, so the implementation of the a quo norm is not easily left out, but is able to [meet] legal needs in the long term, including anticipating technological developments," Justice Wahiduddin explained.

Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih continued that, with the development of motor vehicle technology, the Court understood that there were many motorized vehicles that were equipped with roadmap technology and GPS features to help drivers reach their destination. However, the Court is of the opinion that using mobile phones, which have a variety of features, according to fair reasoning can be classified as disturbing the concentration during traffic, which could lead to traffic accidents. Although not every driver who uses GPS can immediately be judged to have their concentration interfered and endangered their passenger, so the implementation must be viewed case-by-case.

"Therefore, there is no question of unconstitutionality regarding the Elucidation to Article 106 paragraph (1) of Law 22/2009. Thus, the Petitioners\' arguments have no legal grounds," Justice Enny said.

Complete Understanding

As for the Petitioners\' argument that Article 283 of the LLAJ Law multi-interpretative, the Court is of the opinion that the a quo norm is part of Chapter XX of the Criminal Provisions of LLAJ Law. The legislators have provided technical guidance related to the formulation of criminal provisions in the formation of legislation. To understand these norms, Justice Enny said, a complete understanding of the norm contained in Article 106 paragraph (1) is paramount. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)