Justice Arsul Sani concluding the judicial review hearing of Road Law, Tuesday (03/09/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ilham WM.

---

Jakarta, MKRI – The Constitutional Court held a continued judicial review hearing of Article 48 paragraph (1), Article 50 paragraph (4), Article 50 paragraph (10) letter a and b, and Article 50 paragraph (11) of Law No. 2 of 2022 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 38 of 2004 on Road (Road Law) against the 1945 Constitution on Tuesday, September 3, 2024 at the Panel Courtroom. The Case No. 104/PUU-XXII/2024 was filed by Armyn Rustam Effendy and Rahayu Ahadiyati.

During the revision hearing led by Justice Arsul Sani, the Petitioner, who was represented by Danis Kurniarta, said that they had revised their petition. He mentioned that the revision was made to the petitioner's identity, which was previously written retired and then changed to retired ad hoc.

“The second one related to the articles being reviewed, namely Article 48 paragraph (1), Article 50 paragraph (4), Article 50 paragraph (10) letters a and b, and Article 50 paragraph (11) of Law No. 2 of 2022 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 38 of 2004 on Road,” Danis explained.

Danis added that the touchstone was revised, namely Article 28D paragraph (1), Article 28H paragraph (2), Article 33 paragraph (3), and Article 33 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution. “Regarding the legal standing of the petitioners, it is on page 8,” he said.

Also read: Provision on Toll Tariffs in Road Law Challenged

During the preliminary hearing, the Petitioner conveyed that the articles being reviewed contradict Article 27 paragraph (2), Article 28D paragraph (1), Article 33 paragraph (2), and Article 33 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution. The petitioners also argued that there is a precedent in Indonesia for toll roads in which concessions have expired, and then they are made free, for example, the Suramadu Bridge Toll. The Petitioner also argued that in Indonesia, there is already a precedent related to toll roads that have expired their concession period and are then made free, such as in the case of the Suramadu Bridge Toll. Therefore, there is a strong legal basis to make a toll road that is charged, has expired its concession period, and is no longer extended, transferred to a freeway that can be accessed by the public for free. Regarding the maintenance of the road, the Petitioner proposed that the central government use the allocation of funds from the State Budget (APBN).

Furthermore, the Petitioners felt disadvantaged by the enactment of Article 50 paragraph (11) of the Road Law, which regulates the toll tariff of the new concession after the concession period ends and is not extended, which is set lower than the toll tariff applicable at the end of the concession period. According to him, this regulation is a follow-up to Article 50 paragraph (10) letter b of the Road Law, where the Central Government, after obtaining a toll road concession again due to the expiration of the concession period, can choose to make the toll road a non-toll expressway or assign the new concession to a State-Owned Enterprise (BUMN) for toll road operation and preservation. If the Central Government chooses to assign the SOE to manage the toll road, the toll tariff set must be lower than the toll tariff that applies at the end of the concession period.

Based on the explanation, the Petitioners request the Court to examine and adjudicate the case and to grant the petition in its entirety. (*)

Author: Utami Argawati
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR: Raisa Ayuditha Marsaulina

Translator: Rizky Kurnia Chaesario (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.

---