Constitutional Justice Questions Government Oversight on Flight Delay Compensation

Constitutional Court (MK) Justice Saldi Isra has questioned the effectiveness of government oversight of airlines regarding transport services. This was conveyed during a material review hearing of Law Number 1 of 2009 on Aviation held on Tuesday (4 August). Saldi highlighted the role of the Ministry of Transportation in controlling various service issues, from flight delays to the transfer of flights to other airlines within the same group. He argued that the compensation currently applied is not commensurate with the actual losses experienced by passengers. “To the government, what control do you exercise over issues like this? This cannot be measured only by Rp300,000,” Saldi asserted in response to statements from the government’s legal counsel and the relevant party, Lion Group. During the hearing, the compensation mechanism currently in effect for consumers based on delay duration was revealed. Saldi assessed that the amount is far from covering the potential losses experienced by passengers, especially those with important agendas. He cited immaterial losses that are not accommodated, such as passengers failing to attend seminars, fulfil speaking engagements, or conduct important business meetings due to delays. “It is unreasonable if the compensation is only Rp300,000 or merely replaced with light snacks. The losses and potential losses are far greater,” he added. Saldi also asked the government to explain whether consumer protection agencies or aviation consumer associations were involved in determining the compensation amount. He reminded airlines not to hide behind ministerial regulations as an excuse for having implemented the law while ignoring the value of consumer losses. Saldi signalled that the Court might issue a ruling requiring the involvement of consumer representatives in any adjustment of loss calculations, similar to the Court’s previous ruling regarding expired internet data quotas. “The government must not only be pro-airline companies; consumers must also be protected,” Saldi emphasised. Case number 190/PUU-XXIV/2026 was filed by nine advocates and two students. The petitioners are conducting a material review of Article 146, the Elucidation of Article 146, Article 170, and Article 176 of the Aviation Law. The petitioners argue that the current regulations create legal uncertainty and an unbalanced position. They highlighted a loophole that frees airlines from responsibility without the obligation to provide valid proof of delay, such as an official statement from the relevant authority.