The ruling hearing of the material judicial review of Law No. 22 of 2009 on Road Traffic and Land Transportation (LLAJ) on STNKB and TNKB, Thursday (6/15/2023). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) declared the judicial review petition of Law No. 22 of 2009 on Road Traffic and Land Transportation Law (LLAJ Law) by Arifin Purwanto, an advocate, inadmissible. The Decision No. 43/PUU-XXI/2023 was read out at a ruling hearing on Thursday, June 15, 2023.

In its legal considerations delivered by Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih, the Court stated that the Petitioner was unable to explain clearly the constitutionality issue of the enactment of Article 70 paragraph (2) of the LLAJ Law. Despite the panel’s recommendations at the preliminary hearing on Thursday, May 11, the Petitioner only explained his concrete case on the process, forms, and validity periods of STNKB and TNKB. As such, the Court could not judge whether there was an issue of norm constitutionality.

The Petitioner also requested that the Court declare the phrase “shall be valid for 5 (five) years which ratification shall be requested each year” in Article 70 paragraph (2) of Law No. 22 of 2009 and State Gazette No. 96 of 2009 not legally binding if not interpreted as “shall be valid forever and annual renewal shall not be required” but he did not declare any contradiction between the norm and the 1945 Constitution. Such contradiction must be apparent in order for the Court to judge whether the article and/or paragraph is proven to be unconstitutional and not legally binding.

The Court believes that all the petitum, which had been confirmed at the petition revision hearing on Thursday, May 25, was unclear or not according to standard petitum for judicial review, but the Petitioner insisted on it. Therefore, it was not formally in line with the standard petitum as referred to in Article 10 paragraph (2) letter d of the Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK) No. 2 of 2021.

As such, based on all the legal considerations, although the Court had authority over the a quo petition and the Petitioner had legal standing, the unclear or unusual petitum had led to ambiguity and, thus, did not meet the formal requirements for a petition as referred to in Article 31 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Law and Article 10 paragraph (2) of PMK No. 2 of 2021. “Therefore, the Court did not consider the Petitioner’s petition any further,” Justice Enny emphasized.

Also read: 

Provisions on Expiry of Vehicle Registration Challenged

Petitioner Wishes STNKB, TNKB Be Valid Forever

The Petitioner challenged Article 70 paragraph (2) of the LLAJ Law, which reads, “Surat Tanda Nomor Kendaraan Bermotor (Motorized Vehicle Registration Number Document) and Tanda Nomor Kendaraan Bermotor (Motorized Vehicle Number Certificate) shall be valid for 5 (five) years which ratification shall be requested each year.”

At the preliminary hearing on Thursday, May 11, the Petitioner argued that the provision had no valid legal basis. He revealed that during renewal of the two documents, the vehicle in question must be presented to the vehicle document registration center (Samsat). This posed a problem for him, whose motorcycle is now in Surabaya, where he would have to take a four-hour trip one-way to bring his motorcycle for physical checking.

He argued that in order to prevent violation of Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, the STNKB and TNKB be made to be valid forever, just like it was before Indonesia’s independence until 1984. This, he added could prevent forgery of these documents and any wasted money.

Therefore, in the petitum, he requested that the Court declare the phrase “shall be valid for 5 (five) years which ratification shall be requested each year” in Article 70 paragraph (2) of the LLAJ Law unconstitutional and not legally binding if not interpreted as “shall be valid forever and annual renewal shall not be required.” He also proposed that if the STNKB is damaged or lost, the owner can report to any local Samsat for replacement, as all Samsat offices are now integrated online.

Author       : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Andhini S. F.
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

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.

---