Constitutional Court Rejects Petition to Impose Community Service Sanctions for Smoking While Driving
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (MK) has rejected Petition Number 13/PUU-XXIV/2026 concerning a constitutional review of Law Number 22 of 2009 on Road Traffic and Transportation (UU LLAJ). The court stated that the petition lacked supporting evidence.
“Petition 13/PUU-XXIV/2026 cannot be accepted,” declared Constitutional Court Chief Justice Suhartoyo during proceedings held at the Constitutional Court Building in Central Jakarta on Monday, 2 March 2026.
In its deliberation, the court noted that the petitioner failed to provide complete evidence up to the petition correction hearing scheduled. The petition was filed by Syah Wardi, who sought to challenge the constitutionality of Article 106 subsection (1), particularly the phrase “full concentration”, and Article 283 of the UU LLAJ.
However, the petitioner did not attend the correction hearing, resulting in the petition’s dismissal.
Previously, resident Syah Wardi lodged a challenge against Article 106 subsection (1) and Article 283 of Law Number 22 of 2009 on Road Traffic and Transportation. He requested that the Constitutional Court impose additional sanctions on individuals who operate vehicles whilst smoking.
Registered under number 13/PUU-XXIV/2026, the petition challenged the following provisions:
Article 106 subsection (1):
“Every person who operates a motor vehicle on the road must operate their vehicle properly and with full concentration.”
Article 283:
“Any person who operates a motor vehicle on the road in an improper manner and engages in other activities or is affected by a condition that causes concentration disturbance whilst driving on the road as referred to in Article 106 subsection (1) shall be sentenced to imprisonment of no more than 3 months or a fine of no more than IDR 750,000.”
The petitioner argued that roads constitute public spaces carrying high risks to safety. He contended that road traffic regulations should not be subject to multiple interpretations.
“Every ambiguity in traffic law regulations has the potential to cause fatal and irreversible consequences, including loss of life or permanent disability,” he stated.
On these grounds, the petitioner requested that the Constitutional Court declare Article 106 subsection (1) of the UU LLAJ contrary to the 1945 Constitution insofar as it is not interpreted to explicitly mandate that the obligation to drive properly and with full concentration prohibits absolutely any actions that endanger the safety, health, and comfort of other road users, including smoking whilst operating a motor vehicle.
The petitioner also requested that the Constitutional Court declare Article 283 of the UU LLAJ contrary to the 1945 Constitution and without conditional binding legal force, insofar as it is not interpreted to mandate maximum application of penalties and imprisonment periods for violators who smoke whilst driving in order to uphold the rule of law and create a genuine deterrent effect. The petitioner additionally requested that the Constitutional Court establish that drivers caught smoking whilst operating a vehicle must be subject to additional sanctions comprising community service for road cleaning or driving licence suspension for a specified period as a form of accountability for the public risks created.