Constitutional Court: Traffic Light Signaling Devices Accommodate the Needs of All Citizens

JAKARTA, LiterasiHukum.com – The provisions of Article 1 number 19 and Article 25 paragraph (1) letter c of Law Number 22 of 2009 concerning Traffic and Road Transportation (UU LLAJ) are considered not to cause unfair treatment, discrimination, or problems of equality before the law, safety, and welfare. Such is the legal consideration of Decision Number 149/PUU-XXIII/2025 on the petition filed by Singgih Wiryono and Yosafat Diva Bayu Wisesa. This decision was read out in a decision pronouncement hearing on Wednesday (17/9/2025).

Rejection of the Material Review of Article 1 Number 19 of the Law on Traffic and Road Transportation

Constitutional Justice Arsul Sani read out the Court's legal considerations regarding the constitutionality of the norm of Article 1 number 19 of Law 22/2009. The Petitioners requested that the norm be declared conditionally unconstitutional as long as it is not interpreted that "traffic light signaling devices must accommodate people with color vision deficiency, such as changing the color and/or shape and/or distance between the lights of traffic light signaling devices.” Arsul explained that Article 1 number 19 is part of the general provisions containing definitions. Granting the petition for judicial review of this article will have implications for the validity of the entire norm in Law 22/2009 which refers to these general provisions. This, within reasonable limits of reasoning, can damage the structure of the norm of Law 22/2009 as a whole. Therefore, the Petitioner's argument regarding Article 1 number 19 of Law 22/2009 was declared unreasonable according to law.

Protection for All Citizens and Government Obligations

Nevertheless, with regard to the norm of Article 25 paragraph (1) letter c of Law 22/2009, the Court observes that this norm has placed an obligation on government agencies to provide protection and a sense of security for all citizens, including people with disabilities such as those with partial color blindness. Constitutional Court emphasized that, after the enactment of Law No. 8 of 2016, the obligation to provide protection for persons with disabilities should be implemented more seriously.

Implementation Issues, Not Norm Constitutionality

The Court is of the opinion that the problem faced by the Applicant is not related to the constitutionality of the norm, but rather to the problem of the application of the norm which has not been implemented properly. The Constitutional Court emphasized that the government, both central and regional, must consistently demonstrate a strong desire to provide and improve facilities and equipment in public spaces for citizens with disabilities. The aim is to ensure equal opportunities, access, and protection for all citizens. It is important for the Court to emphasize to traffic authorities to fulfill and provide equal opportunities and protection for persons with disabilities in all forms. This includes the provision of traffic light devices

Constitutional Court Decision Verdict

that accommodate the needs of people with color vision deficiency, in order to protect and provide a sense of security for all. Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Suhartoyo read out the Decision stating that the petition of Applicant II could not be accepted and rejected the petition of Applicant I in its entirety. Previously, the Applicants, who are persons with partial color deficiency, often experienced safety threats while driving on the highway, especially in coverage activities. They felt that Article