JAKARTA, Legal Literacy — The Constitutional Court (MK) reminds the Central Government and/or Regional Governments to prioritize the budget or funds for road preservation to immediately repair damaged roads. The Constitutional Court assesses that road damage is a matter of safety and security for road users that is urgent, and therefore has the potential to endanger citizens.
This affirmation was conveyed in the consideration of Decision Number 249/PUU-XXIII/2025 which was pronounced on Monday (19/1/2026) in the Plenary Session Room, Building 1 of the Constitutional Court. This case was filed by Wahyu Nuur Sa’diyah (Petitioner I), Anggun Febrianti (Petitioner II), and Lena Dea Pitrianingsih (Petitioner III) regarding the judicial review of Article 24 paragraph (1) and Article 273 paragraph (1) of Law Number 22 of 2009 concerning Road Traffic and Transportation (UU LLAJ).
Constitutional Court: Damaged Roads Must Be Marked with Signs or Signals
In the consideration read by Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih, the Constitutional Court emphasized that traffic signs or signals are a very important part of road equipment to provide warnings, prohibitions, orders, or instructions for road users. Therefore, if there is a damaged road, the road operator is obliged to provide signs or signals on the damaged road to prevent traffic accidents as regulated in Article 24 paragraph (2) of Law 22/2009.
However, the Constitutional Court emphasized that the main issue that needs to be answered is whether the obligation to install signs on damaged roads can nullify the obligation of road operators to repair damaged roads. According to the Constitutional Court, the provisions of Article 24 paragraph (2) of Law 22/2009 are a preventive measure to minimize accidents, so there is no issue of the constitutionality of the norm in these provisions.
The Petitioners also essentially do not request the cancellation of Article 24 paragraph (2), but rather emphasize the importance of installing signs that meet technical safety standards, are clearly visible day and night, and are installed until road repairs are completed.
Constitutional Court Assesses the Issue as More Appropriate as an Implementation of Norms
The Constitutional Court assesses that the Petitioners' objections to the practice of installing signs and handling damaged roads are more appropriately placed as a matter of implementation of norms, not a matter of the constitutionality of the legal provisions.
Even so, the Constitutional Court emphasized the importance of the government prioritizing road preservation funds to accelerate the repair of damaged roads because it concerns the safety of road users.
The Petition is Considered Vague
Regarding the judicial review of Article 24 paragraph (1) of Law 22/2009, the Constitutional Court (MK) found a contradiction between the grounds for the petition (posita) and the petitioners' request (petitum). In the posita, the Petitioners essentially requested that the word "segera" (immediately) be interpreted as an obligation to repair roads within a reasonable time, with priority given to safety and considering the availability of the current year's budget.
However, in the petitum, the Petitioners instead requested that the word "segera" be declared contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and conditionally have no binding legal force. Based on the provisions of Article 68 letter a of PMK 7/2025, the Constitutional Court (MK) stated that the Petitioners' application regarding the judicial review of Article 24 paragraph (1) and Article 273 paragraph (1) of Law 22/2009 was unclear or vague (obscuur).
Verdict
In the verdict read by Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court (MK), Suhartoyo, the Constitutional Court (MK) stated:
- The Petitioners' application regarding the judicial review of Article 24 paragraph (1) and Article 273 paragraph (1) of Law 22/2009 is inadmissible; and
- The Petitioners' application is rejected for the rest and remainder.
Comments (0)
Write a comment