Legal counsel Zico Leonard Djagardo Simanjuntak explaining the petition’s subject matter at the preliminary hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 22 of 2009 on Road Traffic and Land Transportation (LLAJ), Wednesday (7/26/2023). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held a hearing on the material judicial review of Law No. 22 of 2009 on Road Traffic and Land Transportation Law (LLAJ Law) on Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at the plenary courtroom. The petition No. 73/PUU-XXI/2023 was filed by Leon Maulana Mirza Pasha, an apprentice advocate. He challenges Article 5 paragraph (3) letters b and e, Article 7 paragraph (2) letters b and e, Article 64 paragraphs (4) and (6), Article 67 paragraph (3), Article 68 paragraph (6), Article 69 paragraphs (2) and (3), Article 71 paragraphs (1) and (3), Article 75, Article 87 paragraphs (2) and (4), Article 88, Article 280, and Article 288 paragraph (1) of the LLAJ Law.

Article 5 paragraph (3) letters b reads, “The administration affairs in Road Traffic and Transportation facilities and infrastructure by the state ministry being responsible for the same.”

Article 5 paragraph (3) letters e reads, “Administration affairs in Registration and Identification of the Motor Vehicle and Driver, Legal Enforcement, Traffic Management Operational and Engineering as well as education on traffic by the Police of the Republic of Indonesia.”

In an on-site hearing chaired by Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul, legal counsel Zico Leonard Djagardo Simanjuntak revealed that the Petitioner is an individual, an apprentice advocate who pays state taxes and owns a motor vehicle. He argued that the main cause of congestion, especially in DKI Jakarta Province, is poor registration and identification of motor vehicles and drivers. There is no cohesive policy for its management due to the Police’s authority in handling it.

The Petitioner believes the Police should not have such broad authority over the management of the registration and identification of motor vehicles and drivers. Based on Article 30 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution, the Police only has authority on law enforcement related to road traffic and transportation and not in managing motor vehicle registration.

“In essence, the Petitioner questions the Police’s authority. And we quoted a Constitutional Court decision and compared it with those of other countries—the United States, Australia, Malaysia, Thailand, India, Japan, the Philippines, Canada, Sweden, and the Netherlands. So in our view, it is more constitutional to provide fair legal protection by not making this authority that of the Police,” Simanjuntak said.

Therefore, in the petitum, the Petitioner requests that the Court grant the petition and declare the a quo articles unconstitutional and not legally binding. 

Justices’ Advice

In response, Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh asked the Petitioner to observe the touchstone and reason for the petition. “There have been several Constitutional Court decisions on [the norms] even though there are also [different ones] mentioned in this petition. Please observe Decisions (No. 89/PUU-XIII/2015) and 43/PUU-VIII/2020 because if the norms are similar, the touchstones must be different. Likewise, in terms of the petition’s background, please look again if the norms are the same, there must be a different touchstone or background from past petitions,” he explained.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice M. Guntur Hamzah advised the Petitioner to complete the argument. It must be ascertained whether his constitutional rights are actually harmed by the enactment of the norms.

“Has there ever been an incident or not? For example, having a request for [motor vehicle or driver registration and identification] rejected. Do not let this petition lose legal standing because factually we have not seen whether or not there is harm due to the enactment of this norm,” he said.

Before adjourning the session, Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul announced that the Petitioner had 14 workdays to revise the petition and submit it to the Registrar’s Office by Tuesday, August 8 at 10:00 WIB. 

Author       : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Nur R.
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.

---