The Petitioner attending the ruling hearing for Case No. 82/PUU-XXIV/2026 on the judicial review of Law No. 22 of 2009 on Traffic and Road Transportation, Wednesday (4/29/2026). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) declared inadmissible the petition for the judicial review of Article 24 paragraphs (1) and (2) as well as Article 234 paragraphs (1) and (4) of Law No. 22 of 2009 on Traffic and Road Transportation (LLAJ Law). Decision No. 82/PUU-XXIV/2026 on the petition filed by Stevent Hutri Tandungan was read out during a ruling hearing on Wednesday, April 29, 2026, in the Court’s plenary courtroom.

In its legal considerations delivered by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra, the Court held that the Petitioner failed to specifically explain the form of alleged impairment to his constitutional rights resulting from the enactment of Article 24 of Law No. 22 of 2009, particularly the phrase “damaged roads,” whether in the form of actual losses or at least potential losses which, based on reasonable reasoning, could be expected to occur. In explaining his legal standing, the Petitioner merely stated that he was a vulnerable road user, but did not specifically elaborate on the actual or potential losses he had suffered.

“Therefore, the Petitioner also failed to explain the causal relationship (causal verband) between the alleged impairment of constitutional rights and the enactment of the statutory norms being reviewed by the Petitioner, whereas the explanation of constitutional impairment constitutes an interconnected and cumulative requirement. Accordingly, the Court finds no doubt in declaring that the Petitioner lacks legal standing to act as the Petitioner in filing the a quo petition,” Saldi explained.

Also read:
Petitioner Questions Legal Certainty of ‘Damaged Road’ in Traffic Law
Petitioner Elaborates on Constitutional Losses in Review of “Damaged Road” Phrase

Previously, the Petitioner argued that several provisions of the LLAJ Law gave rise to constitutional issues, particularly the phrase “damaged roads” in Article 24, which he deemed to lack a clear definition and measurable parameters in the law.

According to the Petitioner, the ambiguity of the phrase could potentially lead to multiple interpretations in its implementation. The enactment of the a quo article had created legal uncertainty for the Petitioner in carrying out his daily activities as an intellectual figure. The Petitioner argued that his constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 28C paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution had been impaired because Article 24 and Article 273 used the term “damaged roads” without providing a clear definition.

In addition, the Petitioner also alleged constitutional impairment related to the right to convenience and special treatment as guaranteed under Article 28H paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. In his daily life, the Petitioner claimed that he frequently traveled on damaged roads and therefore did not obtain guarantees of safety and comfort while using public road facilities.

Author: Ilham W.M.
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR: Raisa A.M.
Translator: Yuanna Sisilia

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.

The Complete Decision: Decision No.82/PUU-XXIV/2026 (in Bahasa Indonesia)

 

---