Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
2026 Hak Cipta Milik Hukumonline.com
Produk Pilihan
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami Robert Sidauruk, Agus Sahbani
The Constitutional Court is currently reviewing provisionson minimum requirements for aircraft ownership by airline companies. These requirements, which are set out inArticle 118 (1) of Law No. 1 of 2009 on Aviation (Aviation Law), are considered discriminatory and unfavorable to small enterprises.The article under review stipulates that every aviation company must have at least five aircraft.The applicant inthis judicial is Sigit Sudarmadji,a civil servant at the Ministry of Transportation. According to Mr. Sudarmadji, the minimum requirement on aircraft has prevented him from establishing an aviation company due to consequent high capital required. Due to this provision, he also explained that 27 of some 40 small airline companies have shut down their businesses.
“If I wish to only provide three routes in a province, two aircraft will be enough. If I’m forced to have 10 aircraft, the business will collapse,” said Mr. Sudarmadji during the preliminary hearing last Thursday.
In addition to discriminating businesses with lower capital, it is also argued that the requirement on minimum ownership of aircraft is also discriminatory against domestic airline companies as the requirement does not apply to foreign airline companies.
“Foreign airlines are not affected by the requirement, as they are certified by their national local aviation authority,” said Mr. Sudarmadji. who has worked as a civil servant at the Ministery of Transportation for 20 years.
Mr. Sudarmadji also took shipping businesses as a comparison. Law No. 17 of 2008 on Shipping (Shipping Law) does not require businesses to have minimum vessel ownership. Moreover, the Shipping Law also acknowledges several levels of shipping businesses, namely international, regional, domestic, and community shipping business.
“There should be community scheduled airlines to ensure the development of national aviation business,”suggest Mr. Sudarmadji.
Responding to the petition, Justice Maria Farida reminded the applicant that the Constitutional Court has the authority to review the constitutional value of a law, but not actual cases arising from the law. Further, Justice Farida also emphasized that the Constitutional Court does not have the authority to compare the Aviation Law to the Shipping Law.
“Nevertheless, the applicant may elaborate the rationale behind the silence of the Shipping Law on minimum vessel ownership, and why such requirement exists in the Aviation Law. I believe there is the reason to impose such a requirement,” added Justice Farida.
(hot/kc)
Robert Sidauruk, Agus Sahbani
The Constitutional Court is currently reviewing provisionson minimum requirements for aircraft ownership by airline companies. These requirements, which are set out inArticle 118 (1) of Law No. 1 of 2009 on Aviation (Aviation Law), are considered discriminatory and unfavorable to small enterprises.The article under review stipulates that every aviation company must have at least five aircraft.The applicant inthis judicial is Sigit Sudarmadji,a civil servant at the Ministry of Transportation. According to Mr. Sudarmadji, the minimum requirement on aircraft has prevented him from establishing an aviation company due to consequent high capital required. Due to this provision, he also explained that 27 of some 40 small airline companies have shut down their businesses.
“If I wish to only provide three routes in a province, two aircraft will be enough. If I’m forced to have 10 aircraft, the business will collapse,” said Mr. Sudarmadji during the preliminary hearing last Thursday.
In addition to discriminating businesses with lower capital, it is also argued that the requirement on minimum ownership of aircraft is also discriminatory against domestic airline companies as the requirement does not apply to foreign airline companies.
“Foreign airlines are not affected by the requirement, as they are certified by their national local aviation authority,” said Mr. Sudarmadji. who has worked as a civil servant at the Ministery of Transportation for 20 years.
Mr. Sudarmadji also took shipping businesses as a comparison. Law No. 17 of 2008 on Shipping (Shipping Law) does not require businesses to have minimum vessel ownership. Moreover, the Shipping Law also acknowledges several levels of shipping businesses, namely international, regional, domestic, and community shipping business.
“There should be community scheduled airlines to ensure the development of national aviation business,”suggest Mr. Sudarmadji.
Responding to the petition, Justice Maria Farida reminded the applicant that the Constitutional Court has the authority to review the constitutional value of a law, but not actual cases arising from the law. Further, Justice Farida also emphasized that the Constitutional Court does not have the authority to compare the Aviation Law to the Shipping Law.
“Nevertheless, the applicant may elaborate the rationale behind the silence of the Shipping Law on minimum vessel ownership, and why such requirement exists in the Aviation Law. I believe there is the reason to impose such a requirement,” added Justice Farida.
(hot/kc)