Principal Petitioners Eliadi Hulu and Ruben Saputra Hasiholan Nababan in the revision hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 22 of 2009 on Road Traffic and Land Transportation (LLAJ) on Monday (24/2) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) held a second judicial review hearing of Law No. 22 of 2009 on Road Traffic and Land Transportation (LLAJ) on Monday (24/2/2020) in the Panel Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Petitioners I and II Eliadi Hulu and Ruben Saputra Hasiholan Nababan argue that Article 107 paragraph (2) and Article 293 paragraph (2) of the LLAJ Law contradict Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

In the hearing of case No. 8/PUU-XVIII/2020, Eliadi delivered several points of the petition revision, such as strengthening legal standing by including evidence of student ID card and chairmanship of one of the student activities in the Christian University of Indonesia (UKI). The Petitioners also stated that they have a Class C driver\\'s license. "The enactment of Article 293 paragraph (2) of the LLAJ Law has [lead to] damage [on] the Petitioners being ticketed," Eliadi said before a session led by Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo along with Constitutional Justices Saldi Isra and Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh.

Read also: Petitioners of Provision on Motorcycle Headlight Strengthen Legal Standing

Non-mutual Understanding

Reuben then revealed to the Court that the phrase "on the day" contained in the Elucidation to the a quo law was unclear, leading to multiple interpretation of the concept of daylight and its division. Accordingly, the Petitioners considered that the matter had impaired their constitutional rights. 

In the preliminary examination hearing on Tuesday (4/2/2020), Eliadi said that he had been ticketed by police traffic unit (Satlantas) of East Jakarta on the way to his campus on Monday, July 8, 2019 at 09:00 WIB for not turning on his motorcycle headlight. He had been charged for violating Article 293 paragraph (2) of Law No. 22 of 2009 on Road Traffic and Land Transportation (LLAJ). He then proceeded to download the law in question and upon observing the provision, he could not understand the benefit of turning on headlight during the day. He questioned the mandatory headlight during the day. 

In the petition, the Petitioners argue that the articles are not explanatory as the phrase "on the day" was unclear, leading to multiple interpretation and legal uncertainty, while in fact every law and regulation must be able to realize order in society through guaranteed legal certainty. However, the enactment of these articles has clearly caused legal uncertainty for the Petitioners. (Sri Pujianti/A.L./LA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti

Translation uploaded on 2/27/2020