Jakarta – Twice the Supreme Court (MA) has broken the rules of transportation, aka online taxis made by the Ministry of Transportation. So, when will the completion of regulations for online taxis?
“Actually, the government in this case as a regulator cq the Ministry of Transportation tries to embrace all stakeholder interests (application companies, application partners (applicators / users), end-users and previous transportation business actors), but the reality of regulation is always deadlocked even repelled by the Supreme Court, “said the Research Institute of Transportation Studies (Instran) Deddy Herlambang.
This was said by Deddy when talking with detikcom via the messaging application on Monday (09/17/2018).
With the issuance of the Supreme Court Decision Number 15 P / HUM / 2018 dated 31 May 2018 regarding the Minister of Transportation Regulation Number 108 of 2017 concerning the Implementation of People’s Transportation with Public Vehicles Not in Route a few days ago, a polemic emerged regarding the regulation of online public transport. The Supreme Court’s decision was signed on May 31, 2018, but only a few days ago it was submitted to the public.
Deddy added that the complexity of this online taxi transportation had to be changed by Permenhub (PM) which regulates online taxi transportation. PM has changed the revision number starting from PM No. 32/2016 to PM No. 26/2017 to PM 108/2017 which has been revoked by 23 articles by the Supreme Court.
“The number of PM changes in the past 2 years and also has never been perfectly implemented means that there is indeed a problem in the public transport regulation platform,” he stressed.
The Supreme Court ruling that revoked 23 PM 108/2017 articles, he continued, could be said that the Supreme Court was not balanced in seeing the public interest as the main consumer / user and application partner, aka the vehicle owner. The Supreme Court seems to only review and investigate article-by-article regulations that are juridically-constitutional that always speak of the right to benefit many people.
“In fact, in the transportation sector, more and more people use the road traffic will be more congested. The terrible law of transportation is the increasing number of road users will also increase the number of road accidents, the number of vehicles equivalent to the number of accidents,” he said.
Deddy further elaborated, in verses 48, 51, 56, 57 in PM 108/2017 by the Supreme Court, it is requested to revoke the SRR test, so there is no need to carry a Vehicle Test Book and the like is proof that the Supreme Court does not see road safety is the most important subject. Article 27 (1) d of the online transport sign stickers is also revoked.
“Proving again that the Supreme Court does not see the safety of online transportation also important. Many criminal cases such as sexual harassment, rape, murder, robbery involving online taxi transportation have recently happened, will it be allowed to happen again?” Deddy sued.
Deddy also explained the data and the fact that now the number of online applicators / taxis has over quota, there are more than 175 thousand registered per operator in Jabodetabek alone. Even though the quota in Jabodetabek is only 36,510 vehicles. It is feared that there will be unfair competition among the application partners.
“Online applicators / taxi drivers are increasing every day but the number of users / consumers remains, this issue will reduce the applicator’s income. The ASTRA report, said there have been many car loans stalled by online taxi drivers,” he explained.
Online taxi services, he added, are indeed the best according to their wishes, aka consumer / end-user requests. But the safety and security factors in transportation are the same or standard. So the guarantee of safety and security on the road becomes more important than the application technology itself.
“After the revocation of this regulation, there will be more PMs who will arrange online transportation. Hopefully they will not be sued again to the Supreme Court. Even though there are public claims to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court hopes to remain consistent with aspects of safety and security on the road,” he hoped.