JurnalPost.com - Over the past few years, ride-hailing services (ojol) have become an essential part of daily life in Indonesia. The presence of app-based transportation services has not only provided convenience for daily mobility but has also created income opportunities for many.
However, behind this convenience lie various issues regarding the relationship between drivers and application companies. Partnership status, the percentage of application fee deductions, income transparency, social security, workplace safety, and complaint mechanisms are all issues that require legal certainty.
The government has since issued Presidential Regulation (Perpres) Number 27 of 2026 concerning the Protection of the Digital Platform-Based Transportation Ecosystem. This regulation serves as the foundation for governing app-based transportation, including passenger transport, goods delivery, and food delivery services.
The introduction of this Presidential Regulation is certainly a positive development in the effort to provide legal certainty for drivers, application companies, and service users.
Nevertheless, a question arises that I believe is far more critical: is this Presidential Regulation sufficient to provide protection that is truly fair and tangible for ride-hailing drivers?
From Partnership Relations to Legal Protection
One of the primary issues within the online transportation ecosystem is the legal relationship between drivers and application companies.
To date, ride-hailing drivers have worked under a partnership model. This status differs from the conventional employment relationship between an employee and an employer. Consequently, several aspects of protection require specific regulation.
Presidential Regulation Number 27 of 2026 governs the relationship between drivers and application companies through a Platform Partnership Agreement. This agreement must include the rights and obligations of the parties, fee structures, incentive mechanisms, social security protection, access to transaction data, the use of automated algorithm-based systems, as well as complaint and dispute resolution mechanisms.
In my view, this regulation is an important step toward creating a more balanced partnership.
Application companies hold control over technology, operational systems, and order distribution mechanisms. Meanwhile, drivers are highly dependent on these systems to earn an income.
This power imbalance has the potential to cause issues if not balanced with adequate legal protection.
Therefore, the government must ensure that the term 'partnership' does not merely serve as an administrative legal status, but also reflects fairness in its implementation.
Is a Maximum Platform Fee of 8 Percent Enough?
One provision that has garnered attention in this Presidential Regulation is the cap on platform fees for app-based passenger transport services at a maximum of 8 percent.
This policy is expected to increase the portion of income received by drivers while creating a balance between the interests of application companies and driver partners.
In my view, capping platform fees is a justifiable form of government intervention to protect the public interest amid the growth of the digital economy.
However, setting a maximum limit of 8 percent does not automatically resolve all issues regarding driver income.
The government must continue to monitor the implementation of this policy, particularly to ensure that no additional cost components emerge that ultimately reduce driver income.
Furthermore, comprehensive oversight must be applied to fee calculation systems, incentive distribution, and transaction transparency.
We must ensure that the platform fee cap does not look good only on paper while failing to provide meaningful changes to the economic conditions of drivers.
Effective regulation is not just about setting numerical limits, but ensuring that these provisions are strictly adhered to by all parties.
The Government Must Do More Than Just Create Rules
From the perspective of Administrative Law, the government has the authority to regulate public life through policies and legislation.
However, this authority must be exercised based on the principles of law, accountability, and good governance.
The implementation of Presidential Regulation Number 27 of 2026 involves several ministries with distinct authorities.
The Ministry of Transportation plays a role in regulating passenger transport and its tariffs. The Ministry of Communication and Digital is responsible for the technical regulation of goods and food delivery services, while the Ministry of Cooperatives and SMEs is tasked with overseeing the partnership relationship between drivers and application companies.
The government has also agreed to establish a communication forum or an inter-ministerial task force to strengthen coordination in implementing the regulation.
While this division of authority is necessary, I believe that the number of agencies involved makes coordination a major challenge.
Drivers facing issues should not have to be shuffled from one agency to another simply because of administrative divisions of authority.
For the public, the most important thing is not knowing which ministry is responsible, but obtaining a resolution to the problems they face.
The government must act as a provider of solutions, not just a maker of rules.
General Principles of Good Governance Must Be Applied
From an Administrative Law perspective, the implementation of the ojol Presidential Regulation must also adhere to the General Principles of Good Governance (AUPB).
Relevant principles include legal certainty, utility, diligence, openness, public interest, and good service.
The principle of legal certainty is necessary so that drivers understand their rights and obligations within the partnership.
Meanwhile, the principle of openness is crucial so that drivers can clearly understand the mechanisms for determining tariffs, platform fees, incentive distribution, and the use of algorithms that affect their work.
The principle of public interest also requires the government to ensure that the implemented policies do not only benefit application companies but provide benefits to all parties in the digital transportation ecosystem.
Presidential Regulation Number 27 of 2026 has established the driver's right to obtain transparent information regarding service fees and application fees, personal data protection, explanations regarding the use of algorithms, and access to complaint and dispute resolution mechanisms.
In my view, these provisions are vital because drivers should not be in a position of total dependence on digital system decisions without understanding the basis for those decisions.
Transparency must be an integral part of legal protection, not just an administrative obligation for application companies.
Driver Protection Is Not Just About Income
Discussions regarding the welfare of ride-hailing drivers often focus on trip fares and the amount of application fee deductions.
However, protection for drivers should encompass broader aspects, particularly workplace safety and social security.
Presidential Regulation Number 27 of 2026 also regulates social security protection for drivers, which must at least include health insurance, work accident insurance, and life insurance in accordance with statutory regulations.
These provisions are an important part of the effort to provide more comprehensive protection.
Ride-hailing drivers perform their work on the road and face various risks every day. Traffic accidents, vehicle conditions, weather changes, and potential safety disturbances are all part of their daily challenges.
Therefore, protection must not stop at the issue of increasing income.
The government also needs to ensure that drivers have access to adequate social security and a safer working environment.
Application companies must also take responsibility for supporting driver safety, including monitoring vehicle conditions and implementing safety standards.
The Regulation Is Issued, the Real Challenge Lies in Implementation
In my view, the biggest challenge following the issuance of Presidential Regulation Number 27 of 2026 is no longer the regulation-making process, but its implementation.
The government has set the policy direction. However, a number of implementing regulations from relevant ministries are still needed to translate the provisions in the Presidential Regulation into more technical rules.
The government targets the completion of these implementing regulations by no later than 31 December 2026.
At this stage, the government must ensure that the derivative regulations truly address the needs of the drivers.
We must ensure that the technical provisions issued do not hinder the implementation of the protections already set forth in the Presidential Regulation.
Furthermore, the government needs to provide space for participation to drivers, driver organizations, application companies, and other relevant parties in the policy formulation and evaluation process.
The experience of drivers who deal directly with issues in the field can be an important consideration in determining the effectiveness of the regulation.
Public participation is also a key element in realizing open and accountable governance.
Legal Protection Must Be Felt, Not Just Written
Ultimately, I view the issuance of Presidential Regulation Number 27 of 2026 as a step forward in providing legal certainty for the digital platform-based transportation ecosystem.
However, the success of a policy cannot be measured solely by the birth of legislation.
Success must be measured by the extent to which the public, especially ride-hailing drivers, truly feels the benefits of these provisions.
If platform fees have been capped but drivers still struggle to earn a decent income, the government needs to conduct an evaluation.
If a complaint mechanism is available but driver grievances are not handled effectively, the government must increase oversight.
Likewise, if partnership agreements are required to be transparent but drivers still struggle to understand their rights and obligations, steps must be taken to ensure that information is accessible, clear, and easy to understand.
From the perspective of Administrative Law, the government's responsibility does not end with the authority to form policies. The government is also obligated to ensure that these policies are implemented fairly, transparently, diligently, and with a focus on the public interest.
The ojol Presidential Regulation will only be truly meaningful if drivers can work more safely, receive decent protection, and have legal certainty in carrying out their work.
Because good law is not just law that is written down, but law that is capable of delivering justice and real protection to the community.
Comments 0
Write a Comment Share your response