Constitutional Justices Enny Nurbaningsih and Saldi Isra at the ruling hearing for the judicial review of Law No. 22 of 2009 on the Road Traffic and Land Transportation, Wednesday (11/30/2022). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.
Wednesday, November 30, 2022 | 16:26 WIB
JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) rejected the entire judicial review petition of Law No. 22 of 2009 on the Road Traffic and Land Transportation (LLAJ) filed by journalist Irfan Kamil for case, who argued that Article 273 paragraph (1) of the LLAJ Law and its elucidation were contrary to Article 1 paragraph (3) and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. The Decision No. 98/PUU-XX/2022 was read out on Wednesday, November 30, 2022 in the plenary courtroom.
In its legal considerations read out by Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih, the Court asserted that the government as a supervisory agency can distribute tasks to regional governments, both provincial and district/city. This is then reaffirmed in regulations on road traffic and transportation in direct services to the public as regulated in Article 7 paragraph (1) of the LLAJ Law, which is carried out by the Government, regional governments, legal entities, and/or the community.
The Court also asserted that, in order to further regulate the distribution of central government affairs to provincial regional governments and regency/city governments, a traffic network and road transportation master plan is determined, which is divided into: a. National Road Traffic and Transportation Network Master Plan; b. Provincial Road Traffic and Transportation Network Master Plan; and c. District/City Road Traffic and Transportation Network Master Plan [vide Article 14 paragraph (3) of the LLAJ Law]. Similarly, regional spatial plans are also divided into national, provincial, and district/city areas, and the authority to determine road classes is also divided based on national roads, provincial roads, district roads, and city roads [vide Article 20 paragraph (1) of the LLAJ Law].
Also read: Journalist Questions Role of State Administrators over Damaged Roads
Road Law
Justice Enny explained that roads are also specifically regulated in Law No. 38 of 2004 on Roads as last amended by Law No. 2 of 2022 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 38 of 2004 on Roads. As a lex specialis law, the a quo law contains more specific arrangements on roads. Therefore, provisions related on roads in the LLAJ Law cannot be read separated from the Road Law. The road organizers—who makes arrangements for guidance, development, road supervision in accordance with their authority—which the Petitioner questioned, is strictly defined in Article 1 point 3 of Law No. 2 of 2022. The division and grouping of roads as well as road maintenance and repair are also regulated in detail in Law No. 2 of 2022. The question of who will be responsible for the road damage, which the Petitioner questioned, is answered in Law No. 2 of 2022. In addition to the Road Law, technical arrangements on roads have also been regulated in Government Regulation (PP) No. 34 of 2006 on Roads. Thus, the Court asserted that the Petitioner’s concern of potential constitutional impairment as a result of the unconstitutionality of Article 273 paragraph (1) of Law No. 22 of 2009 is legally groundless.
Also read: Journalist Revises Petition against LLAJ Law
Road Organizers
The Court argued that the Petitioner’s petitum that the Court interpret the phrase “road organizer” to mean “That Road Organizers, among others, the National Road Operators shall be the President and/or Minister who administers government affairs on roads, the Provincial Road Operators shall be Regional Governments carried out by Governors, the Regency/City Road Organizers shall be Regents/Mayors” would narrow the legal subject of Article 24 paragraph (1) Law No. 22 of 2009, which regulates the obligation of road organizers to repair road damage, as well as the threat of punishment regulated in Article 273 paragraph (1) Law No. 22 of 2009.
In addition, Law No. 2 of 2022 has regulated the division of roads based on their designation, i.e. public roads and special roads, and the distribution of public roads based on their functions, i.e. arterial roads, collector roads, local roads, and neighborhood roads. Meanwhile, the division of public roads based on their status into national roads, provincial roads, regency roads, city roads, and village roads, is only part of the types of roads regulated in Law No. 2 of 2022. Thus, such narrowing of legal subject against road damage would actually be counterproductive to the Petitioner’s own wish to obtain protection as a road user. In other words, such petitum contradicts the Petitioner’s wishes in the posita.
Therefore, according to the Court, Article 273 paragraph (1) of the LLAJ Law did not create legal uncertainty as argued by the Petitioner. Thus, the Petitioner’s entire argument was legally groundless.
Writer : Utami Argawati
Editor : Nur R.
PR : Raisa Ayuditha
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Translation uploaded on 12/5/2022 09:14 WIB
Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian versions, the Indonesian version will prevail.
Wednesday, November 30, 2022 | 16:26 WIB 295