Chief Justice Suhartoyo reads out the ruling in the judicial review of Law Number 22 of 2009 on Road Traffic and Transportation, Tuesday (12/05), at the Constitutional Court courtroom. Photo: MKRI Public Relations/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA, MKRI  – The phrase “full concentration” in Article 106 paragraph (1) of Law Number 22 of 2009 on Road Traffic and Transportation (UU LLAJ) is intended to prevent forms of distraction that may reduce a driver’s focus and endanger road safety. This formed part of the Constitutional Court’s legal considerations in reviewing Article 106 paragraph (1) of the law in Case Number 101/PUU-XXIV/2026, filed by Muhammad Reihan Alfariziq. The ruling was delivered on Tuesday (12/5/2026).

Responding to the petition filed by a student of the Faculty of Law at Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta, Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh emphasized that traffic safety must continue to be strengthened through the active participation of all stakeholders, including the government, traffic law enforcement authorities, road users, and road operators.

He noted that one of the factors frequently contributing to traffic accidents is a driver’s condition when fatigued, drowsy, or inattentive while driving. In such circumstances, a driver’s ability to maintain concentration, respond to traffic situations, and make quick and accurate decisions may significantly decline, thereby increasing the risk of accidents.

“Therefore, alongside growing awareness of safe and responsible driving, as well as advancements in traffic technology, it is necessary to provide or utilize traffic-monitoring technologies capable of detecting signs of driver fatigue, drowsiness, or loss of alertness while operating a vehicle for example through eye movement patterns, facial expressions, head position, or driving duration monitored using timing devices or timers. Such systems are expected to provide early warnings when drivers begin to lose vigilance or concentration that could endanger road safety,” Daniel explained.

The Court held that the Petitioner’s argument claiming the phrase “full concentration” in Article 106 paragraph (1) of Law 22/2009 was vague and lacked clear parameters was unfounded. On the contrary, the Court stated that the phrase remains necessary as a reminder and behavioral standard for drivers to refrain from operating vehicles in conditions that could impair their attention or driving ability and endanger both themselves and other road users.

Accordingly, the Court found the Petitioner’s arguments to be legally groundless.

“The phrase ‘full concentration’ in Article 106 paragraph (1) of Law 22/2009 has been proven not to contradict the rights to legal certainty, personal protection and security from fear, the right to a prosperous life, the state’s responsibility in fulfilling human rights, and the recognition of rights and freedoms limited by law to respect the rights of others, as guaranteed under Article 28D paragraph (1), Article 28G paragraph (1), Article 28H paragraph (1), Article 28I paragraph (4), and Article 28J paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution, contrary to the Petitioner’s claims. Therefore, the Petitioner’s arguments are entirely without legal basis,” Daniel stated.

Also read:

Student Seeks Clearer Ban on Smoking and Phone Use While Driving in Traffic Law
Court Hears Refined Arguments in Challenge to ‘Driver Concentration’ Clause of Traffic Law

During the preliminary hearing on Thursday (2 April 2026), the petitioner argued that the contested norm imposes an obligation on drivers to operate vehicles with “full concentration,” yet fails to provide clear normative boundaries regarding actions that may disrupt such concentration, including smoking and the use of mobile phones while driving.

He emphasized that the judicial review is not merely driven by personal interest, but rather concerns the protection of public safety in shared spaces and the realization of legal certainty in traffic law enforcement. A vague or potentially ambiguous norm, he argued, not only harms him individually but also creates systemic risks for the broader public. Such ambiguity opens the door to inconsistent and disproportionate law enforcement, and may even lead to violations of citizens’ rights.

In his petitum, the petitioner requests that the Court declare Article 106 paragraph (1) of the UU LLAJ contrary to the 1945 Constitution and conditionally unconstitutional, unless it is interpreted as encompassing acts that objectively and demonstrably reduce a driver’s ability to control a vehicle or lower their level of alertness while driving.

 

Full decision in Bahasa Indonesia is available here Decision in Case No. 101/PUU-XXIV/2026

Author               : Sri Pujianti
Editor                 : N Rosi.

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.

---