Petitioners in the judicial review of Law No. 1 of 2009 on Aviation (Aviation Law) directly presenting the main points of their petition in the panel courtroom on Wednesday (4/22/2026). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI)-On Wednesday, April 22, 2026, the Constitutional Court (MK) held a preliminary hearing for the judicial review of Law No. 1 of 2009 on Aviation (Aviation Law). The hearing for Case No. 134/PUU-XXIV/2026 was presided over by Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih, accompanied by Constitutional Justices Ridwan Mansyur and Arsul Sani.

The petition was filed by Doris Manggalang Raja Sagala, Jonswaris Sinaga, Amudin Laia, Tomry Hasudungan Gurning, Rika Kardela Irama, and Yeremia Zebua. The Petitioners challenged Article 146, Article 170, and Article 176 of the Aviation Law against the 1945 Constitution.

Information Asymmetry

The Petitioners highlighted the imbalance of information between airlines as carriers and passengers as consumers. Airlines are deemed to have full access to flight operational information, while passengers only receive one-sided information without transparency. This condition is considered to create information asymmetry that weakens passengers’ bargaining position. Airlines often cite reasons for delays, such as weather factors or technical operational constraints, without providing verifiable evidence.

“Airlines only provide unilateral information without authentic evidence. As a result, passengers lose the legal means to test airlines’ unilateral claims due to the absence of valid comparative data. According to the Petitioners, the state has an important role in protecting passengers. This stems from the unequal position between airlines and passengers. This phenomenon is often referred to as information asymmetry,” Doris Manggalang Raja Sagala said.

Passengers’ lack of knowledge about what actually happens in the cockpit or in the operations control room creates a legal loophole that allows airlines to easily use weather or technical factors as a shield for delays. “Passengers face limitations in verifying the reasons for delays, for example because weather conditions are geographically invisible. Bad weather may occur at the departure airport, along the flight route, at the destination airport, or affect the aircraft on its previous flight,” she said before the panel.

Avoiding Compensation

In their petition, the Petitioners also argued that Article 146 of the Aviation Law contains a normative flaw because it provides broad exceptions to airline liability. The phrase “weather factors and technical operational factors” is said to be frequently used to avoid compensation obligations, while there are no explicit sanctions for airlines that provide inaccurate information.

In addition, Article 170 of the Aviation Law is deemed not to regulate airlines’ obligation to disclose data and evidence of delays transparently. This, they argued, creates legal uncertainty and fails to provide adequate protection for passengers. Meanwhile, Article 176 of the Aviation Law is challenged because it limits passengers’ right to file lawsuits in court for losses resulting from delays, as it does not include Article 146 as a basis for such claims.

The Petitioners argued that these provisions are contrary to Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution concerning the guarantee of fair legal certainty and Article 28F of the 1945 Constitution concerning the right to obtain information.

In their petitum, the Petitioners asked the Court to declare Article 146 of the Aviation Law contrary to the 1945 Constitution and not legally binding unless interpreted to mean that the carrier must be responsible for delays, unless it can prove through valid and accessible technical data that the delay was caused by weather factors and/or technical operational factors.

The Petitioners also asked that Article 170 of the Aviation Law be declared unconstitutional unless interpreted to mean that the provision of technical data on delays and the amount of compensation must be further regulated in a ministerial regulation.

They further requested that Article 176 of the Aviation Law be declared contrary to the 1945 Constitution unless interpreted to mean that passengers and related parties suffering losses, including those caused by delays, may file lawsuits against carriers in district courts within Indonesia.

Actual Losses Must Be Clearly Explained

Constitutional Justice Arsul Sani advised the Petitioners to clearly describe the actual losses they had suffered. He explained that if a petitioner experienced a flight delay, the petition should concretely state the airline, flight number, duration of the delay, the form of compensation received, and the absence of any explanation from the airline.

“If you argue actual losses, they must be explained. For example, I boarded this airline on a certain flight number, experienced a delay of several hours, only received a certain form of compensation, and obtained no explanation. That needs to be constructed clearly so that it is easier to understand,” Arsul said.

A clear explanation in the petition is important because the case will not only be assessed by the panel, but also by all constitutional justices. Arsul reminded the Petitioners that a petition that is not clearly drafted risks being declared inadmissible.

“It is not only the panel that will assess it, but nine constitutional justices, or at least seven justices. Therefore, it is important for the Petitioners to ensure that the other justices can understand it. If it is unclear, the petition may be declared unclear,” he emphasized.

At the end of the hearing, the panel gave the Petitioners 14 days to revise their petition. The revised petition must be submitted to the Constitutional Court no later than Tuesday, May 5, 2026

Author: Utami Argawati
Editor: N. Rosi
PR: Fauzan F.
Translator: Siti Rosmalina Nurhayati

Explore: Petition No. 134/PUU-XXIV/2026

---