Jakarta – 6 Online taxi drivers sued Permenhub Number 26 of 2017 on Online Transportation. The sixth driver’s argument was granted by the Supreme Court (MA) and the articles being sued were revoked. What is the argument of the applicant?

The six drivers are Sutarno, Endru, Herman Susanto, Iwanto, Bayu Sarwo Aji and Handoyo. Based on the decision of the Supreme Court quoted detikcom, Tuesday (22/08/2017), they presented a number of arguments, namely:

1. A freight rate with an argometer or stamped on the application minimizes the opportunity to get more customers whose fares should be cheap according to reasonable distance.

2. Conventional tariffs from the beginning are not known to the exact number so that the tariff is very likely to change and harm consumers.

3. Tariffs on upper and lower borders do not provide healthy competition for business actors, as SME entrepreneurs who should be able to provide cheap tariffs should raise tariffs due to high costs as is the case with conventional taxis.

4. Tariffs on upper and lower borders have resulted in expensive tariff costs on consumers, because with the journey that is close and distant not based on the actual tariff but the tariff has been set in advance when mileage is not known with certainty.

5. Determination of restriction of operation area Special Lease Transportation has caused unhealthy business competition as this narrows space for UMKM perpetrator added with limitation of odd and even regulation which finally can not develop while conventional taxi can operate indefinitely and without following odd rules and even.

6. Establishment of restrictions on the area of ​​freight operations Special leases do not provide a wide choice for consumers, so the price tariff is very likely to be determined by market authorities such as unconventional free taxi cabs that lead consumers to bear the expensive tariff.

7. Stipulation by the Government of the vehicle requirement plan for a period of 5 years and annual evaluation will limit the development of UMKM entrepreneurs and will create additional
high cost for the management of MSMEs, because in fact the UMKM entrepreneurs have been doing the maintenance
its vehicles every year as required by its partner business

8. Restrictions on the number of vehicles on the market do not result in fair business competition so that the possibility of normal tariffs is formed by the market mechanism of demand and supply. This condition can be tricked by entrepreneurs, so it can impact the high tariff costs that will be charged to the consumer. The need for vehicles in the market should be determined by the market balance between the supply and demand that will eventually form the normal tariff in the field.