Constitutional Court Rejects Petition Seeking Free Train Tickets for Children up to Age Five
The Constitutional Court (MK) has rejected a petition filed by citizen Jangkung Sido Sentosa seeking free train tickets for children aged 0–5. The court ruled that the fare charged for children aged 3–5 does not constitute a deviation from the law. “The petitioner’s request is rejected in its entirety,” said Chief Justice Suhartoyo when reading the ruling on Friday (28/8/2026).
Constitutional Justice Ridwan Mansyur stated that the fare exemption for children under three years old, currently a policy of state railway operator PT KAI, does not constitute a deviation from Article 131 paragraph (1) of Law 23/2007, which stipulates an age limit of under five years for the provision of special facilities or conveniences by railway infrastructure operators.
The court said the fare exemption for children under three is aligned with justice based on space usage, meaning that children aged from birth to under three years old remain closely dependent on their parents. “This means that children within that age limit, as long as they do not use or occupy a passenger seat quota or are held on the lap of a parent or companion, are not charged a ticket fee,” the court’s statement read.
According to the court, this is a form of policy by the railway infrastructure operator that remains based on the legal relationship of a transport agreement between the operator and the train passenger. In other words, as long as an infant or child is held on the lap of a parent or companion during the journey, the parent or adult only pays for the physical space or seat they occupy. This provides justice and legal certainty for railway service users.
Furthermore, the special facilities referred to in Article 131 paragraph (1) of Law 23/2007 may include the construction of special pathways at stations and special facilities for boarding trains, or the provision of dedicated space for wheelchair placement or aids for sick people whose transport requires a lying position. “Thus, matters relating to ticket fee exemptions are not included in the special facilities referred to,” Ridwan explained.
Rigid Restrictions Would Limit Facilities
Justice Ridwan further explained that railway infrastructure operators have an obligation to prioritise passenger safety and security, prioritise public interest services, maintain service continuity on designated routes, announce train schedules and transport fares to the public, and comply with train departure schedules.
In addition, the court said, railway infrastructure operators also have obligations including providing special facilities and conveniences for persons with disabilities, pregnant women, children under five, sick people, and the elderly so they can enjoy services equivalent to passengers without certain limitations, so that the objectives of railway infrastructure operation can be achieved.
“Imposing rigid restrictions on the form, substance, or type of special facilities and certain conveniences in statutory provisions would actually close or limit the scope for providing special facilities or other conveniences that may develop in line with future needs of the groups protected by Article 131 paragraph (1) of Law 23/2007 in order to achieve the objectives of railway infrastructure operation,” Ridwan said.
The court considered that such restrictions would actually create legal uncertainty. According to the court, the elucidation of Article 131 paragraph (1) of Law 23/2007 has mentioned matters that can be categorised as forms of providing special facilities or conveniences. “The use of the word ‘may’ in the elucidation indicates that the provision of special facilities is not limited to what is mentioned in the norm,” he said.
The court affirmed that Article 131 paragraph (1) of Law 23/2007 provides policy space for railway infrastructure operators to fulfil obligations mandated by law while taking into account the operator’s capabilities and the needs of each group.
Quoted from the Constitutional Court’s official website on Tuesday (28/7/2026), the petition was registered under case number 288/PUU-XXIV/2026. The petitioner challenged Article 131 paragraph (1) of Law Number 23 of 2007.
The petitioner argued that a Rp 0 fare for children aged 0 to 5 years constitutes a form of affirmative action for the protection of vulnerable groups. According to the petitioner, toddlers are physically and legally in a vulnerable and not yet independent condition.
The petitioner asked the court to grant the petition in its entirety, declare Article 131 paragraph (1) of Law Number 23 of 2007 on Railways contrary to the 1945 Constitution and not legally binding insofar as the phrase ‘special facilities’ for children under five is not interpreted to include free tickets, and the phrase ‘children under five years’ is not interpreted as children aged 0 to 5 full years, and to order the publication of the ruling in the State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia. The petitioner also requested an equitable decision (ex aequo et bono) should the court hold a different opinion.