The Constitutional Court delivered a determination in Case Number 162/PUU-XXIV/2026 concerning the interpretation and/or clarification of Constitutional Court Decision Number 174/PUU-XXII/2024 during a plenary hearing on Wednesday afternoon (June 17, 2026). Photo by MKRI Public Relations/Panji.
JAKARTA, (MKRI) - The Constitutional Court (MK) formally granted the withdrawal of Petition Number 162/PUU-XXIV/2026 during a hearing for the pronouncement of a determination on Wednesday (June 17, 2026). The petition concerned a request related to Constitutional Court Decision Number 174/PUU-XXII/2024 on the judicial review of Law Number 22 of 2009 on Road Traffic and Transportation (UU LLAJ) against the 1945 Constitution.
“Determines: First, to grant the Petitioners’ request to withdraw the petition,” Chief Justice Suhartoyo stated during the hearing at the Court’s Plenary Chamber in Jakarta.
Read also:
Advocates Seek Clarification on Interpretation of Constitutional Court Decision
Petitioners Withdraw Request for Clarification of Constitutional Court Decision
The Petitioners in the case were Jonathan Waeo Salisi and Rachel Laisesa. Both had previously declared their intention to withdraw the petition during a hearing held on June 3, 2026, at the Constitutional Court.
During the preliminary examination hearing, the Petitioners had requested clarification regarding Constitutional Court Decision Number 174/PUU-XXII/2024. They characterized their submission as a petition seeking an “interpretive clarification of a Constitutional Court decision” and appeared before the Court as Petitioners.
Jonathan argued that differing interpretations had emerged regarding the Court’s ruling in Decision Number 174/PUU-XXII/2024. According to the Petitioners, because the Constitutional Court has the authority to review laws against the Constitution, it also serves as the final interpreter of the Constitution. Therefore, they contended that the Court should likewise have the authority to clarify the meaning of its own decisions when uncertainty arises in the implementation of legal norms that have already been adjudicated.
The ruling in Decision Number 174/PUU-XXII/2024 rejected the petition in its entirety. However, according to the Petitioners, the Court’s legal considerations discussed a number of provisions closely related to driver’s licenses (SIM).
Among the provisions referenced were Article 77 paragraph (1) of the Road Traffic and Transportation Law concerning the obligation of motorists to possess and carry a driver’s license; Article 81 concerning the form, classification, requirements, and procedures for obtaining a license; Article 85 concerning the validity period and territorial scope of a license; Articles 87, 88, and 89 concerning the issuance of licenses, the authorities authorized to issue them, and endorsements relating to traffic violations; Articles 106 and 265 concerning vehicle inspections, including driver’s license inspections; and Articles 281, 288 paragraph (2), and 314 concerning criminal sanctions and fines related to driver’s licenses.
The Petitioners further argued that, based on the regulatory framework governing driver’s licenses under the Road Traffic and Transportation Law, the Court had identified the phrase “showing a driver’s license” as part of Article 288 paragraph (2), the provision challenged in Case Number 174/PUU-XXII/2024, which falls within the category of criminal sanctions and/or fines.
This is evident from the text of Article 288 paragraph (2), which provides:
“Any person operating a motor vehicle on a public road who is unable to present a valid driver’s license as referred to in Article 106 paragraph (5) letter b shall be subject to imprisonment for a maximum of one month and/or a fine of up to Rp250,000.”
The Petitioners questioned whether presenting or using a digital driver’s license could be interpreted as insufficient or unrecognized for purposes of operating a motor vehicle in Indonesia. They noted that one of the principal issues raised in Case Number 174/PUU-XXII/2024 involved the display of a digital driver’s license, yet the petitioner in that case remained subject to Article 288 paragraph (2), creating the impression that digital driver’s licenses were not permitted or legally recognized.
The Petitioners also pointed out that the National Police Traffic Corps (Korlantas Polri) had already introduced electronic versions of driver’s licenses (SIM) and vehicle registration certificates (BPKB) pursuant to Article 85 paragraph (1) of the Road Traffic and Transportation Law. They therefore questioned whether electronic driver’s licenses and electronic vehicle registration certificates should likewise be recognized as digital forms of those documents.
“Thus, this petition seeks clarification regarding the legal considerations underlying the ruling in Case Number 174/PUU-XXII/2024. We thank the Court for its attention,” Jonathan stated. (*)
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: Petition Number 162/PUU-XXIV/2026
Wednesday, June 17, 2026 | 14:41 WIB 136