---

Principal Petitioner Eliadi Hulu in the ruling hearing of the judicial review of the LLAJ Law, Thursday (25/6) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Gani.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) rejected the entire judicial review petition of Law No. 22 of 2009 on Road Traffic and Land Transportation (LLAJ) regarding mandatory headlight for motorcycles. The ruling was pronounced on Thursday (25/6/2020) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. The hearing of case No. 8/PUU-XVIII/2020took place with physical distancing to curb the spread of COVID-19, in accordance with the health protocols set by the Indonesian Health Ministry and the World Health Organization (WHO).

"The Constitutional Court declares [it] rejects the Petitioners’ petition for its entirety," said Chief Constitutional Justice Anwar Usman regarding the case petitioned by Petitioners I and II Eliadi Hulu and Ruben Saputra Hasiholan Nababan.

In the petition, Eliadi Hulu stated that he was 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 was charged for violating Article 293 paragraph (2) of Law No. 22 of 2009 on Road Traffic and Land Transportation (LLAJ). He 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. The Petitioners detailed that the articles are not explanatory as the phrase "on the day" was unclear, leading to multiple interpretation and legal uncertainty.

Also read: Ticketed for Not Turning on Motorcycle Headlight during the Day, Two University Students Challenge LLAJ Law 

Reading out the legal considerations of the Court, Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo said that based on the provisions in Article 107 paragraph (1) of the LLAJ Law, which regulates all motorized vehicles without exception, it is mandatory to turn on headlight at night and in certain conditions to anticipate other vehicles in the vicinity.

The provision for mandatory headlight for motorcycles as stipulated in Article 107 paragraph (2) of the LLAJ Law certainly has safety reasons. During the day when it is bright each vehicle can anticipate other vehicles, including those behind it, through the rearview mirror. However, as motorcycles speed up easily and is relatively small, often other motorists cannot anticipate them from behind or from the front with a relatively long anticipatory distance. Mandatory headlights for motorcycles will help other motorists to anticipate them.

"So it is clear [that in] Article 107 [paragraphs (1) and (2)] of the LLAJ Law there is special emphasis on the differences between [night and day]. [At night], all drivers must turn on headlights. [During the day] only motorcycles are required to turn on headlights. Thus, according to the Court, the meaning ‘at daylight’ must be attached to the situation when [it] is bright. Therefore, in the context of the a quo norm, no division of morning, afternoon, or evening is required to interpret it," Justice Suhartoyo explained to the Petitioners, who argued that Article 107 paragraph (2) and Article 293 paragraph (2) were in violation of Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. 

Resulting in Ambiguity 

Regarding the Petitioners’ request that the phrase "at daylight" be interpreted throughout the day, the Court is of the opinion that this does not correspond to the constitutional damage they argued. In addition, this can also result in the ambiguity of the enactment of Article 107 of the LLAJ Law because it is intended to order motorcyclists to turn on headlights, both at night and on the day. 

"If the phrase ‘at daylight’ in Article 107 paragraph (2) of the LLAJ Law be changed to ‘all day,’ according to the Court this would be inaccurate because, in addition to it being ambiguous, there would also be an overlap with the norm contained in Article 107 paragraph (1) LLAJ Law," said Justice Suhartoyo. 

Ambiguity in Law Enforcement 

Furthermore, based on Article 293 paragraph (2) of the LLAJ Law, Justice Suhartoyo added, if the word "daylight" was replaced with the phrase “throughout the day,” it would be redundant and overlap with the norm of Article 293 paragraph (1) of the LLAJ Law because the phrase "throughout the day" as intended by the Petitioners can mean both day and night, whereas the regulation of sanctions for violations of the use of headlights when it is dark and in certain conditions is regulated in Article 293 paragraph (1) of the LLAJ Law. 

He added that this change could result to confusion when the authorities wanted enforce the law. When a motorcyclist does not turn on their headlights at night, the authorities will find a difficulty qualifying the violation they have committed. 

“Therefore, the Court is of the opinion that the meaning of the word ‘daylight’ as stipulated in Article 107 paragraph (2) and Article 293 paragraph (2) of the LLAJ Law is clear and has provided legal certainty. Any opinion distinguishing between morning, afternoon, or night and daylight is a matter of perception based on common attribution, not based on a review of theories, doctrines, and scientific argumentation,” Justice Suhartoyo said.

To help curb the spread of COVID-19, the petitioners and their attorney(s), the government, experts, witnesses, and other parties can use the online courtroom facilities. The Constitutional Court uses Cloudx and Zoom for online hearing from the parties’ respective residences. In order to be able to use the online courtroom facilities, the litigating parties are to notify the Court’s ICT team of their locations and the instruments that they have at least two days before the hearing. Other parties can watch the hearing online through the Court’s YouTube channel’s livestream. (Sri Pujianti/FY/LA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti

Translation uploaded on 6/25/2020

---