Petitioner attending the preliminary hearing of Case No. 8/PUU-XIV/2026 on the material judicial review of Law No. 22 of 2009 on Traffic and Road Transport, Tuesday (20/1/2026). Photo by MKRI/Bay.

---

Jakarta (MKRI) - Muhammad Reihan Alfariziq has filed a petition for a material judicial review of Article 106 of Law No. 22 of 2009 on Road Traffic and Transport (Traffic Law) against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia at the Constitutional Court. Reihan stated that he suffered a serious accident when a cigarette butt thrown from a private car driver struck him and caused him to lose focus while riding.

“The concrete facts of the accident experienced by the Petitioner show that this norm has failed to prevent serious and nearly fatal risks arising from smoking while driving, including the risk of almost being run over by a truck,” Reihan said at the preliminary hearing for Case No. 8/PUU-XXIV/2026 on Tuesday, January 20, 2026, in the Courtroom.

He added that because the car driver was smoking while driving and then tossed the cigarette butt, which hit him, he lost concentration and was hit from behind by a Colt diesel truck and almost run over.​ In addition to physical and psychological harm, the Petitioner claimed to have suffered constitutional losses because his right to safety (Article 28G paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution) and his right to health (Article 28H paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution) could not be effectively guaranteed due to a legal loophole in the existing norm.

His experience, he argued, demonstrates that Article 106 of the Traffic Law is not sufficiently effective in protecting his safety and the public's safety, so the harm he suffered is specific, actual, and potential, and similar risks may continue to occur to anyone if the norm is not improved. The Petitioner argued that the legal gap in Article 106 of the Traffic Law creates legal uncertainty, leaving the public without effective guarantees to protect their safety and health.

Article 106 of the Traffic Law reads: “Every person driving a motor vehicle must maintain concentration and refrain from engaging in activities that may interfere with vehicle control, including smoking inside the vehicle while driving.” According to the Petitioner, this provision does not provide clear and specific legal protection for the safety and health of drivers and other road users, and therefore conflicts with Article 28G paragraph (1) and Article 28H paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

He maintained that the provision should be interpreted or reviewed constitutionally so as to impose an explicit ban on smoking while driving; ensure maximum protection for public safety and health; and provide adequate legal certainty so the norm can be effectively enforced and prevent further accidents or losses, including the risk of death. In his petitum, the Petitioner asked the Court to declare Article 106 of Law No. 22 of 2009 on Road Traffic and Transport unconstitutional and without binding legal force, as it fails to afford effective protection for the safety and health of drivers and the general public.​

Constitutional loss

The petition was heard by a Panel of Justices chaired by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra, accompanied by Justices Ridwan Mansyur and Arsul Sani. During the advice session, Ridwan stated that the Petitioner’s account of the incident had not yet established an argument showing a violation of constitutional rights arising from the enforcement of the challenged article, nor a clear contradiction between that norm and the constitutional provisions invoked as the basis of review.​

“This still leaves a lot of homework for you to explain whether the (constitutional rights) harm is actual or potential. You must elaborate how there is a causal link between that harm, between the incident and what you experienced, both as a road user and as an individual,” Justice Ridwan explained.

Before adjourning the hearing, Deputy Chief Justice Saldi stated that the Petitioner had an opportunity to revise the petition within 14 days. The revised petition files, in both soft copy and hard copy, must be received by the Court no later than Monday, 2 February 2026, at 12.00 Western Indonesian Time.

Case tracking: Petition No. 8/PUU-XIV/2026

Author: Mimi Kartika.

Editor: N. Rosi.

PR: Raisa Ayuditha Marsaulina.

Translator: Rizky Kurnia Chaesario

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.

 

---