Regulations on Flight Delay Information Challenged at Constitutional Court, Airlines Urged to Be More Transparent
JAKARTA - A number of citizens have challenged the provisions on transparency regarding the causes of flight delays or cancellations to the Constitutional Court (MK) because they are deemed detrimental to passengers and open the door to one-sided claims from airlines.
“Airlines only provide information unilaterally without authentic evidence. This results in passengers losing legal instruments to challenge one-sided claims,” said petitioner Doris Manggalang Raja Sagala, during the hearing held on Wednesday (22/4/2026).
The material examination petition for Law No. 1 of 2009 on Aviation (Aviation Law) is registered under No. 134/PUU-XXIV/2026.
The petition was filed by Doris along with Jonswaris Sinaga, Amudin Laia, Tomry Hasudungan Gurning, Rika Kardela Irama, and Yeremia Zebua.
The petitioners assess that there is an imbalance in positions between airlines and passengers, leading to the phenomenon of information asymmetry.
This condition is seen as weakening passengers’ bargaining position.
Airlines, according to them, often use reasons such as weather factors or operational technical constraints without transparent supporting evidence.
Meanwhile, passengers do not have access to verify those conditions, either at the departure airport, along the flight route, or at the destination airport.
“The limitations of passengers in verifying delay reasons, including weather factors that are not visible to the eye, open loopholes for airlines to use such reasons as a shield,” said Doris before the panel of judges.
The phrase is often used to avoid compensation obligations without accompanying sanctions for inaccurate information.
Meanwhile, Article 170 is assessed as not requiring airlines to disclose technical data related to delays transparently, thus creating legal uncertainty and minimal protection for passengers.
Article 176 is questioned because it limits passengers’ rights to sue for damages due to delays, as it does not include Article 146 as a basis for claims.
The petitioners assess that these provisions contradict Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 UUD NRI on guarantees of fair legal certainty and Article 28F of the 1945 UUD NRI on the right to obtain information.
The petitioners also request that Article 170 be declared unconstitutional to the extent that it is not interpreted as obliging the provision of technical data on delays and the amount of compensation to be further regulated in a ministerial regulation.
In addition, Article 176 is requested to be declared contrary to the 1945 UUD NRI to the extent that it is not interpreted as allowing aggrieved passengers, including due to delays, to file lawsuits against airlines in district courts in Indonesian territory.