Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul opening the petition revision hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 22 of 2009 on Road Traffic and Land Transportation (LLAJ) as a panel chair, Tuesday (8/8/2023). Photo by Humas MK/Fauzan.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — A judicial review hearing of Law No. 22 of 2009 on Road Traffic and Land Transportation Law (LLAJ Law) took place once more in the Constitutional Court (MK) on Tuesday, August 8, 2023. The sixth hearing for case No. 42/PUU-XXI/2023, filed by advocate Arifin Purwanto, had been scheduled to present the Petitioner’s witness.

At the on-site hearing, chaired by Chief Justice Anwar Usman, the Petitioner’s witness Roiman Virgo Yanto recounted his experience applying for a driving license to drive motorcycles (“SIM C”), the exam of which he failed four times.

“[To apply for] SIM C, I followed the procedure [and paid for each] 125,000 [rupiahs] and took four exams, one every two weeks. I received a green slip, then blue, yellow, and pink. I failed the theory exam four times. I took a day off from work [for each test]. I took the theory and practical exams the fifth time and passed them,” he explained. He also added that a physical exam was not required of him for the application.

Roiman also explained the process for renewing a driving license. He was confused because the SIM keliling, a car that provide a service for renew a driving license, of Kalibata Heroes Cemetery set a fee of 250,000 rupiahs for renewal, which includes a psych test.

“I then went to Depok; it was 235,000. I went to Tamini Square; it was 215,000. Then I went to Pesing; it was 175,000 for the SIM and 35,000 for health [exam]. The fee in Pesing, Daan Mogot was cheaper. So, I researched for the fees. What I was confused about is that different [police traffic corps] set different fees,” Roiman explained.

Meanwhile, the second witness, Sarmadi, said he had applied for a driving license in 1996. He did so by himself, without any broker.

“When I applied for SIM, I took a written exam on traffic signs and ethics. After the [theory] exam, I took a picture, then took a practical exam. Because there were many [applicants], we were gathered and only a representative was asked to take the test. [The rest of us] only observed, and then it finished. We then received a new SIM. There was no individual practical exam,” he explained.

Also read:

Petitioner Wishes STNKB, TNKB Be Valid Forever 

Petitioner Requests Driving License to Last for Life 

House, President Unprepared to Testify on Driving License Validity

Govt: Health and Driving Competency Must Be Evaluated 

Police: Driver’s License Validity Period Remains Relevant 

The Petitioner questions the expiry of driving license (SIM) in Article 85 paragraph (2) of the LLAJ Law, which reads, “Driving License shall apply for 5 (five) years and be extendible.”

At the preliminary hearing on Wednesday, May 10, the Petitioner said that every five years he had to extend his driving license (SIM), which he argued was unfavorable for him.

“Every time I extend my driving license, for example last year, I would get a driving license. Then five years later, I extend it a second time. The license number would be different, Your Honor. There is no legal certainty and if the deadline is passed, everything must be started from scratched and processed. This, of course, is in contrast with [resident ID card or KTP]. [A new] KTP will be produced at once,” he said.

The LLAJ Law mandates every driver of motorized vehicles to have a driving license. The theoretical and practice tests for obtaining it are surely not easy. The test results only notify test-takers whether they have passed or failed the tests, but do not show the answers for the questions. In addition, the Petitioner alleges, the materials for these tests do not have clear legal bases and do not show any review from competent institutions. This, he argues, is in violation of Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

Based on those arguments, the Petitioner requests that the Court grant the petition and declare Article 85 paragraph (2) of the LLAJ Law unconstitutional and not legally binding as long as the phrase “shall apply for 5 (five) years and be extendible” not be interpreted as “shall apply for life.”     

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.

---