Rules for Prohibiting Use of Phones when Driving Constitutionally

The Constitutional Court (MK) rejects the application in its entirety towards the judicial review of Law Number 22 Year 2009 concerning Road Traffic and Transportation (LLAJ Law) at the verdict held on Wednesday (1/30/2019) in the Plenary Session Room of the Constitutional Court. “The verdict, adjudicating, rejects the petition of the applicant in its entirety,” said Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Anwar Usman for the registered case Number 23 / PUU-XVI / 2018.

Previously, Toyota Soluna Community (TSC) and Irvan who work as online transportation drivers said that they felt that their constitutional rights were impaired by the enactment of Article 106 paragraph (1) and Article 283 of the LLAJ Law. The Petitioner considers that the provision is contradictory to the 1945 Constitution, especially Article 1 paragraph (3) and Article 28D paragraph (1). The Petitioner believes that the phrase “using the telephone” in the a quo article as one of the reasons for the disruption of the concentration of motorized vehicle drivers must have a clear purpose. So, there are no multiple interpretations in the implementation.

In the legal considerations, Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams stated that the Court understood the intent of the General Explanation of the LLAJ Law, which in essence was to reduce the number of traffic accidents which were increasingly high. The goal is none other than creating and guaranteeing traffic order and safety. According to the Court, continued Wahiduddin, the LLAJ Law was a means for engineering society towards a better life. Because, the face and legal culture of a country are reflected in the behavior of the people in traffic. Using a telephone, he added, is only one of the causes that can affect the driver’s ability to drive the vehicle in full concentration. If referring to KBBI the word ‘use’ is interpreted using and is active. Thus, the formulation of the a quo norm has been quite clear.

“The legislators only formulate a general explanation regarding causes that can affect the ability of motorists to drive vehicles in full concentration so that the implementation of Article a quo norms is not easily left behind, but is able to reach legal needs in the long term, including anticipating technological developments, “Explained Wahiduddin.

Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih continued that along with the development of motor vehicle technology the Court understood that there had been many motorized vehicles produced at the same time equipped with road map technology coupled with GPS features to help drivers reach their destination. However, the Court is of the opinion that using cellular telephones in which there are various features within the limits of fair reasoning, including in terms of disturbing the concentration of traffic that has an impact on traffic accidents. Although not every driver who uses GPS can immediately be judged to interfere with driving concentration that endangers the user, so the application must be viewed casually.

“Therefore, there is no question of unconstitutionality regarding the explanation of article 106 paragraph (1) of Law 22/2009. Thus, the Petitioners’ arguments have no legal grounds, “Enny said.

Intact Understanding

As for the Petitioner’s data stating that Article 283 of the LLAJ Law has multiple interpretations, the Court is of the opinion that the a quo normis part of Chapter XX of the Criminal Provisions of LLAJ Law. The legislator has provided technical guidance relating to the formulation of criminal provisions in the formation of legislation. To understand these norms, said Enny, it cannot be separated from a complete understanding of the norms contained in Article 106 paragraph (1). Based on this description, the Court is of the opinion that the Petitioners’ arguments relating to the phrase “carrying out other activities or being influenced by a situation that results in disruption of concentration in driving on the road” contained in Article 283 of Law 22/2009 contrary to the 1945 Constitution as long as it is not interpreted Satellite-based navigation system applications that are included in cellphones are unlawful. ” (Sri Pujianti / LA)