Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra reads out the ruling in the judicial review case of Law No. 22 of 2009 on Road Traffic and Transportation (UU LLAJ) on Monday (2/3/2026) in the Constitutional Court’s plenary courtroom. Photo: MK Public Relations/Panji.

---

JAKARTA, MKRI – The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia (MK) declared Petition Number 13/PUU-XXIV/2026 inadmissible in a judicial review of Law No. 22 of 2009 on Road Traffic and Transportation against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia on Monday (2/3/2026).

“Petition 13/PUU-XXIV/2026 is declared inadmissible,” said Chief Justice Suhartoyo, accompanied by the nine Constitutional Justices.

In the Court’s legal considerations delivered by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra, the Court stated that up to the preliminary examination stage—held to review revisions to the petition and the ratification of evidence—the petition had not been accompanied by any supporting evidence.

The petition was filed by Syah Wardi, who challenged the constitutionality of Article 106 paragraph (1)—particularly the phrase “full concentration”—as well as Article 283 of the Road Traffic and Transportation Law. However, during the hearing presided over by Chief Justice Suhartoyo, the petitioner failed to appear at the session scheduled to examine revisions to the petition.

 

Also read:

Testing Driving Concentration Provisions in the Traffic Law
Petitioner Absent in Traffic Law Review; Panel Refers Case to Justices’ Deliberation Meeting

Previously, the petitioner argued that as a citizen and an active road user, he found the provision requiring drivers to maintain “full concentration” under Article 106 paragraph (1) of the law to lack clear limitations. According to him, the norm is abstract and open to multiple interpretations, which could potentially lead to legal uncertainty and inconsistent law enforcement.

Article 106 of the Road Traffic and Transportation Law requires drivers of motor vehicles to operate their vehicles properly and with full concentration. Article 283 of the law stipulates criminal sanctions for violations of that provision.

Article 106 paragraph (1) states:
“Every person who drives a motor vehicle on the road shall operate the vehicle properly and with full concentration.”

Article 283 provides:
“Any person who drives a motor vehicle on the road in an improper manner and engages in other activities or is influenced by a condition that disrupts driving concentration as referred to in Article 106 paragraph (1) shall be subject to a maximum imprisonment of three (3) months or a fine of up to Rp750,000 (seven hundred fifty thousand rupiah).”

In the substance of his petition, the petitioner requested the Court to declare Article 106 paragraph (1) conditionally unconstitutional insofar as it is not interpreted explicitly to mean that the obligation to drive properly and with full concentration absolutely prohibits any act that may endanger the safety, health, and comfort of other road users, including smoking while driving a motor vehicle.

The petitioner further explained that the phrase “full concentration” in the provision remains overly general and fails to provide legal certainty. He argued that the absence of an explicit prohibition on smoking while driving represents a normative gap. Smoking while driving, he contended, may pose dangers because it requires drivers to remove one hand from the steering wheel and may cause distractions from ashes, embers, or falling cigarette butts.

Explore the Case: Petition Number 13/PUU-XXIV/2026

Full decision in Bahasa Indonesia is available here Decision of Case Number 13/PUU-XXIV/2026.

 

Author               : Utami Argawati
Editor                 : N. Rosi.

Public Relations: Raisa Ayuditha Marsaulina
Translator          : SO

 

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.

 

 

---