Sued to the Constitutional Court, Ban on Smoking and Using Mobile Phones While Driving Demands Clarification in the Road Traffic Law
The ban on smoking and using mobile phones while driving is being requested for clarification in the Road Traffic and Transportation Law. The petitioner assesses that the current regulations are still too general, potentially leading to multiple interpretations and endangering road safety.
This issue emerged during a Constitutional Court (MK) hearing examining Article 106 paragraph (1) of Law Number 22 of 2009 on Road Traffic and Transportation (UU LLAJ), on Thursday (2/4) in Jakarta.
The petition, case number 101/PUU-XXIV/2026, was filed by Muhammad Reihan Alfariziq, a student from the Faculty of Law at Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta.
In his petition, Reihan considers the phrase “full concentration” in the regulation to lack clear boundaries, particularly regarding activities that can disrupt the driver’s concentration, such as smoking and using a mobile phone.
“The norm does not contain clear normative boundaries regarding actions that disrupt concentration, including smoking activities and the use of a mobile phone while driving,” said Reihan.
He emphasised that testing this article concerns not only personal interests but also broader public safety.
“A norm that is unclear has the potential to cause non-uniform, disproportionate law enforcement, and even potentially violate citizens’ rights,” he stated.
In his petitum, Reihan requested that the article be declared still constitutional, but with a more detailed affirmation of its meaning. He proposed that “full concentration” be interpreted as not performing actions that demonstrably reduce control while driving.
“Including manual use of a mobile phone, active smoking activities, and similar actions that cause loss of control or reduced driver attention,” he said.
Meanwhile, Constitutional Court Justice M. Guntur Hamzah highlighted the aspect of legal standing of the petitioner. He asked the petitioner to show concrete evidence of harm experienced.
“Evidence is needed from the Petitioner regarding the claim of ‘full concentration’, for example, as a driver who experiences risk due to lack of concentration,” said Guntur.
Constitutional Court Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh also reminded the petitioner to consider whether the issue lies in the norm or the article’s explanation.
“It could be that what needs strengthening is not the norm, but the explanation of the article,” said Daniel.
In agreement, MK Chief Justice Suhartoyo requested that the petition be simplified to make it easier to understand.
“Also consider whether the explanation of the article needs to be strengthened with conditional interpretation,” he said.