The Petitioners attend the Preliminary Examination Hearing of Case Number 162/PUU-XXIV/2026 concerning the Interpretation and/or Clarification of Constitutional Court Decision Number 174/PUU-XXII/2024, Monday (05/18/2026). Photo by MKRI/Bay.
JAKARTA, (MKRI) – Jonathan Waeo Salisi and Rachel Laisesa submitted a request for clarification of Constitutional Court Decision Number 174/PUU-XXII/2024 concerning the judicial review of Law Number 22 of 2009 on Road Traffic and Transportation (LLAJ Law) against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (UUD 1945), which was pronounced on Friday (03/21/2025). They described their submission as a petition seeking “clarification of the interpretation of a Constitutional Court decision” and identified themselves as Petitioners.
“Our petition does not seek to review a law, but rather to request clarification of the interpretation of a Constitutional Court decision,” Jonathan stated during the Preliminary Examination Hearing of Petition Number 162/PUU-XXIV/2026 held on Monday (05/18/2026).
Jonathan explained that differing interpretations have arisen regarding Decision Number 174/PUU-XXII/2024. The Petitioners argue that the Constitutional Court, as the authority to review laws against the Constitution, functions as the final interpreter of the Constitution. Therefore, they contend that the Court also has the authority to interpret its own decisions when there is uncertainty in the application of statutory norms that have been adjudicated.
The ruling in Decision Number 174/PUU-XXII/2024 rejected the petition in its entirety. However, according to the Petitioners, in its legal considerations, the Court examined several provisions and/or paragraphs closely related to driver’s licenses (SIM).
These provisions include, among others: the obligation for drivers to possess and carry a valid driver’s license under Article 77 paragraph (1) of the LLAJ Law; the classification and form of driver’s licenses under Article 81; the requirements and procedures for obtaining a driver’s license under Article 81; the validity period and territorial scope under Article 85; the issuance of driver’s licenses and the authority responsible, as well as annotations in cases of traffic violations under Articles 87, 88, and 89; roadside inspections including SIM checks under Articles 106 and 265; and criminal sanctions and/or fines related to driver’s licenses under Articles 281, 288 paragraph (2), and 314 of the LLAJ Law.
The Petitioners further argued that, based on this regulatory framework, the phrase “showing a driver’s license” forms part of the norm under Article 288 paragraph (2) of the LLAJ Law, which falls within the category of criminal sanctions and/or fines. This is evident from the provision stating that any person driving a motor vehicle who cannot present a valid driver’s license as referred to in Article 106 paragraph (5) letter (b) shall be subject to imprisonment of up to one month and/or a fine of up to Rp250,000.
The Petitioners questioned whether presenting or using a digital driver’s license (SIM) would be considered invalid or unrecognized for driving within the territory of the Republic of Indonesia. They noted that in the previous case (Decision Number 174/PUU-XXII/2024), the Petitioner had presented a digital SIM but was still subject to Article 288 paragraph (2), as if the use of a digital SIM were not permitted.
They also referred to the Traffic Corps of the Indonesian National Police (Korlantas Polri), which has introduced electronic SIM and vehicle registration documents (BPKB) pursuant to Article 85 paragraph (1) of the LLAJ Law, raising the question of whether such electronic forms can be interpreted as digital SIM and BPKB.
“Thus, we respectfully submit this request for clarification of the legal considerations related to the operative part of Decision Number 174/PUU-XXII/2024. We thank the Court for its attention,” Jonathan stated.
The petition was heard by a panel of justices chaired by Chief Justice Suhartoyo, accompanied by Constitutional Justices Daneil Yusmic P. Foekh and M. Guntur Hamzah.
In his advice, Justice Guntur emphasized that the Petitioners must clarify whether a request for interpretative clarification—often referred to as a constitutional question—falls within the Court’s jurisdiction. Doctrinally, a constitutional question differs from judicial review.
“Therefore, when we speak about jurisdiction, it must be clear whether this falls within the authority of the Constitutional Court. You may consider it within the Court’s authority, but others may argue otherwise,” Guntur stated.
Meanwhile, Chief Justice Suhartoyo advised the Petitioners to clarify their submission in writing, specifying whether it constitutes a constitutional question or a judicial review. Any formal petition must comply with the structure set out in Constitutional Court Regulation Number 7 of 2025 on Procedures in Judicial Review Cases, including the Court’s jurisdiction, legal standing, posita, and petitum.
“If this is merely a request for clarification regarding Decision 174, you may withdraw the current petition and submit a new one that clearly states it is not a judicial review. This will allow the Court to respond appropriately based on the Petitioners’ intent,” Suhartoyo explained.
He added that the Court cannot refuse petitions, including those that may overlap between constitutional questions and judicial review, but clarity from the Petitioners is essential.
Finally, Suhartoyo informed that the Petitioners are granted 14 days to revise their petition. The revised submission must be received by the Court no later than Tuesday (06/02/2026) at 12:00 WIB.
Author : Mimi Kartika
Editor : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR : Fauzan Febriyan
Translator : Agusweka PS.
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.
Case Track: Number 162/PUU-XXIV/2026
Monday, May 18, 2026 | 15:51 WIB 46