Conflict of Norms between Law No. 22 of 2009 on Traffic and Road Transportation and the Minister of Transportation Regulation on App Based Transportation: An Analysis of Hierarchy and Regulatory Making Authority

Abstract

Objective: This study aims to analyze the conflict of norms between Law No. 22 of 2009 on Traffic and Road Transportation (UU LLAJ) and Minister of Transportation Regulations No. 118 of 2018 and No. 12 of 2019 regarding "special rental transportation." The focus of this study is directed towards evaluating whether the provisions in these ministerial regulations align with or contradict the legal framework and the principles of the hierarchy of applicable legislation.

Theoretical Framework: This analysis is based on the theory of the hierarchy of norms (stufenbau des recht) developed by Hans Kelsen, the principle of lex superior derogat legi inferiori, and the concept of delegated legislation. These three theoretical foundations are used to assess the validity and the limits of the authority of the Minister of Transportation in establishing implementing regulations.

Method: The research uses a normative legal method with a statutory approach, conceptual approach, and analytical approach. Primary legal materials include UU LLAJ, Law No. 12 of 2011 on the Formation of Legislation, as well as Minister of Transportation Regulations No. 118 of 2018 and No. 12 of 2019. Secondary legal materials are obtained from scholarly literature and opinions of legal experts related to the hierarchy of norms and the authority to form regulations.

Results and Discussion: The research findings show a substantial inconsistency between UU LLAJ and the ministerial regulations governing app-based transportation. The creation of the new category "special rental transportation" lacks a clear delegative basis in the law, thus legally exceeding the authority (ultra vires). This expansion of the norm blurs the distinction between public and private vehicles, and creates uncertainty regarding legal responsibility, oversight mechanisms, and the division of authority between the central and regional governments.

Research Implications: These findings emphasize the importance of legislative reform so that national law can adapt to technological innovations without compromising the principle of legal certainty. A revision of UU LLAJ is necessary to explicitly accommodate digital transportation models, ensuring hierarchical consistency within the legal system and preventing the abuse of authority by executive agencies.

Originality/Value: This research provides both theoretical and normative contributions to the discourse on regulatory adaptation in the digital era by illustrating how hierarchical discrepancies arise when executive policymakers attempt to fill legal gaps through implementing regulations. This study offers an analytical framework for legal reform to ensure alignment with the principles of legality and the rule of law within the Indonesian legal system.