Jakarta. An Indonesian Constitutional Court justice on Tuesday questioned whether the country's Rp 300,000 ($17) compensation for flight delays of at least four hours provides adequate protection for airline passengers, pressing the government to explain how the amount was determined.

During a hearing on a judicial review of the Aviation Law and related regulations, Justice Saldi Isra said the compensation appeared disproportionate to the financial and personal losses that passengers could suffer because of lengthy delays.

He also asked whether the Transportation Ministry had exercised adequate oversight of airline service standards, including prolonged delays and the practice of transferring passengers to other airlines within the same corporate group.

"What oversight does the government have over issues like these, which cannot simply be measured by Rp 300,000?" Saldi said during the hearing.

"Please explain what the government intends to do to ensure compensation reflects the losses suffered by consumers."

Under current Transportation Ministry regulations, airlines must pay Rp 300,000 in compensation for flight delays of up to 240 minutes. Passengers experiencing shorter delays receive refreshments, including snacks and drinks, depending on the length of the disruption.

Saldi argued that the compensation may fall far short of the actual losses passengers can incur.

He cited the example of a traveler scheduled to arrive in Yogyakarta for an important morning event but who misses it after a four-hour delay.

"It makes little sense if the compensation is limited to Rp 300,000 -- or merely snacks and bottled water," he said.

The judicial review was filed by nine lawyers and two university students, who argue they suffered losses because of flight delays.

They are challenging Article 146 of the Aviation Law, which makes airlines liable for losses caused by delays but allows them to avoid liability if they can prove the disruption resulted solely from weather conditions or operational technical factors.

The petitioners argue the provision is unconstitutional because it fails to provide sufficient legal certainty and unfairly favors airlines. They are also challenging the implementing regulation that sets the current compensation amounts, arguing they do not adequately reflect passengers' losses.

The Constitutional Court has heard submissions from Lion Air, which is participating in the case as an interested party, as well as representatives of the government.

Saldi also asked whether consumer protection organizations or aviation consumer groups had been consulted when the compensation rules were drafted.

He cautioned that airlines should not rely solely on compliance with ministerial regulations if the compensation provided fails to reflect the actual losses suffered by passengers.

Add as a preferred source on Google +