---

The Petitioner’s attorney Yohanes Mahatma in the ruling hearing of the judicial review of the Road Traffic and Land Transportation (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 judicial review petition of Law No. 22 of 2009 on Road Traffic and Land Transportation (LLAJ) filed by Novan Lailathul Rizky and four other petitioners, who are Law Faculty students of Sahid University Jakarta. "The [Court] adjudicated, rejects the Petitioners’ petition in its entirety," said plenary chairman Chief Constitutional Justice Anwar Usman along with the other constitutional justices in the ruling hearing, Thursday (25/6/2020).

The Petitioners had challenged Article 311 paragraph (1) of the LLAJ Law, which reads, "Anyone who deliberately drives a motorized vehicle in a manner or condition that is dangerous for lives or goods shall be punishable with imprisonment up to 1 (one) year or a fine up to Rp3,000,000 (three million rupiah)."

The Petitioners argued that they drove a motorcycle daily and were often subjected to dangerous situations because there were many underage children drive a motorcycle, often as young as 7-10 years old. Although they had driven carefully and followed all traffic regulations, they almost had an accident several times because of the actions of underage children who were not eligible for a driver’s license and weren’t supposed to drive yet.

Also read:

Review of LLAJ Law: Penalty for Parents Who Allow Minors to Ride Motorcycles

Judicial Review Petition of Road Traffic Law Not Revised 

The Court is of the opinion that Article 311 paragraph (1) of the LLAJ Law is constitutional and that it should not be interpreted that the interpretation as requested by the Petitioners to be attached to the a quo norm is unconstitutional.

“The Court in essence does not consider the constitutionality of the substance petitioned by the a quo Petitioners because the interpretation requested by the Petitioners, if granted, would require the Court to form a new legal norm, meaning to formulate criminal policy. The establishment of new norms is fundamentally always avoided by the Court because it is the [authority] of the legislative body as a positive legislator,” said Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra reading out the legal considerations of the Court.

It is important to be stressed by the Court, in addition to the current legal considerations as described above, the Court also has a stance in the previous decisions, that matters relating to criminal policy relating to the deprivation of citizens’ independence must receive the approval of a representative body that represents the will of the people.

Therefore, through the a quo ruling, the Court encouraged that the Petitioners’ interpretation of Article 311 paragraph (1) of the LLAJ Law be proposed to the legislative body to be discussed as a criminal policy in order to prevent road accidents caused by underage motorists.

"[The Court] considered whereas based on all the above considerations, the Petitioners’ argument regarding the unconstitutionality of Article 311 paragraph (1) of the LLAJ Law insofar as it is not interpreted ‘to include drivers who have not reached legal adulthood’, to those who deliberately give/lend motorized vehicles, is groundless according to law," said Justice Saldi. (Nano Tresna Arfana/Halim/NRA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti

Translation uploaded on 6/26/2020

---