The Petitioners attend the Preliminary Hearing of Case Number 249/PUU-XXIII/2025 on the Judicial Review of Law Number 22 of 2009 on Road Traffic and Transportation, Wednesday (12/17/2025), at the Court. Photo by MKRI/Bay. Three university students have challenged provisions of the Road Traffic and Transportation Law, citing deteriorated road conditions in Tulungagung, East Java.

---

JAKARTA, (MKRI) – Wahyu Nuur Sa’diyah (Petitioner I), Anggun Febrianti (Petitioner II), and Lena Dea Pitrianingsih (Petitioner III) filed a judicial review petition against Article 24 paragraph (1) and Article 273 paragraph (1) of Law Number 22 of 2009 on Road Traffic and Transportation (LLAJ Law) before the Constitutional Court. The Preliminary Hearing for Petition Number 249/PUU-XXIII/2025 was conducted by Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat on Wednesday (12/17/2025) in the Court’s Panel Hearing Room.

Article 24 paragraph (1) of the LLAJ Law stipulates that road administrators are obliged to promptly and properly repair damaged roads that may cause traffic accidents. Article 273 paragraph (1) provides that road administrators (central or regional governments) who fail to promptly and properly repair damaged roads resulting in traffic accidents—causing minor injuries or property damage—may be subject to imprisonment of up to six months or a maximum fine of Rp12 million, with heavier criminal sanctions if the accident results in serious injury or death, as well as sanctions for failing to install warning signs on damaged roads.

Petitioner III Lena Dea Pitrianingsih argued that these provisions contradict Article 28D paragraph (1), Article 28H paragraph (1), and Article 28I paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (UUD 1945). In practice, Article 24 paragraph (1) of the LLAJ Law is considered to create a loophole that allows delays in road repairs. The term “promptly” does not provide legal certainty regarding a maximum timeframe for repairs, enabling road administrators to postpone their obligations and thereby increasing safety risks for road users.

The Petitioners explained that road maintenance is funded through the State or Regional Budget (APBN/APBD), which is allocated annually. Accordingly, maintenance funds should be prepared in advance and remain continuously available. On this basis, road administrators should have sufficient budgetary capacity to carry out repairs without delay. Any postponement—particularly when it endangers road users and may result in loss of life—cannot be justified, as administrative budgetary reasons run counter to the State’s obligation to protect its citizens.

“Declare the word ‘promptly’ in Article 24 paragraph (1) of Law Number 22 of 2009 on Road Traffic and Transportation to be contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and to have conditionally unconstitutional legal force, insofar as it is not interpreted as ‘within a maximum period in accordance with established minimum service standards, or at the latest to be completed within the current fiscal year using routine maintenance funds or emergency funds,’” Anggun Febrianti stated while reading out the Petitioners’ petitum.

Constitutional Harm

In her advice to the Petitioners, Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih emphasized the need to strengthen the explanation of the constitutional harm suffered as a result of the enactment of the challenged norms, supported by evidence. “What is being requested is merely an interpretation of the word ‘promptly,’ so the norm must be read as a whole—there are paragraph (1) and paragraph (2)—and then interpreted accordingly. The norm should be viewed as an integrated provision; if repairs cannot be carried out promptly, warning signs may also be installed,” Enny explained to the Petitioners, who attended the hearing online.

Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh also provided notes regarding the Petitioners’ understanding of the need to first examine Supreme Court Regulation (PMK) Number 7 of 2025 and the principle of ne bis in idem. “In this petition, there are also descriptions of each Petitioner’s qualifications indicating that they have never submitted reports. This gives an impression of passivity. If possible, strengthen the petition by adding relevant legal principles or doctrines to convince the Justices in interpreting the challenged norms,” Daniel remarked.

The Petitioners were granted 14 days to revise and improve their petition. The revised submission must be filed with the Court Registry no later than Tuesday, 12/23/2025 at 12:00 PM (GMT+7). The Court will subsequently hold a second hearing to examine the substance of the revised petition. (*)

Case Tracker: Number 249/PUU-XXIII/2025

Author             : Sri Pujianti 

Editor              : Lulu Anjarsari P.

PR                   : Adriana Airlia Yusrin

Translator       : Agusweka Poltak Siregar

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 prevails.

---