By: Ari Wibowo (Researcher The PRAKARSA)
News of President Prabowo Subianto's plan to sign a draft Presidential Regulation (Perpres) concerning ride-hailing services brings both a breath of fresh air and a heavy burden of expectation. For more than a decade, millions of online motorcycle taxi and taxi drivers in Indonesia have lived in legal limbo, trapped in a gray area of the gig economy.
This step is not merely an administrative matter, but rather a concrete policy imperative for the new government to translate social justice for the "little people" in the digital age. If this Presidential Decree merely legalizes the status quo, we will lose historical momentum. This regulation must be a corrective instrument for structural inequalities that have been hidden behind the jargon of "technology" and "flexibility."
There are at least substantial things that must be monitored so that this Presidential Decree does not become a paper tiger, but rather a dignified umbrella of protection.
Redefining Equitable Partnership
The root of the problem in the ride-hailing ecosystem is the biased definition of "partner." To date, the relationship has been a partnership in name only (a pseudo-partnership). In fact, the app provider holds full control, like an employer: setting fares, establishing service standards, and even imposing sanctions. However, the business risk is borne entirely by the driver.
From the perspective of the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights (BHR), the state has a duty to protect its citizens from exploitative business practices. This Presidential Regulation must restore this balance. Partnerships should no longer be based on unilateral compliance, where drivers simply click "agree" to changing terms and conditions (T&Cs) without negotiation.
The state must be present to ensure meaningful consent. Drivers, through unions or their representatives, must have bargaining power in setting base rates and rules. Without this, partnership is merely a euphemism for cheap labor without rights.
Hybrid Social Security Scheme
The most crucial issue is the loss of workers' normative rights. The pretext of being "partners" allows app providers to absolve themselves of their obligation to pay health and employment insurance contributions, placing the burden on drivers, whose incomes are increasingly eroded. The Employment Social Security Agency (BPJS Ketenagakerjaan) reported that of the approximately 2,5 million online motorcycle taxi (ojol) workers in Indonesia, only 351.097 were registered as participants as of October 2025. This means that many online motorcycle taxi (ojol) workers remain unprotected as workers.
We can no longer rely on the conventional, rigid "worker vs. employer" perspective. This Presidential Decree needs to encourage adaptive or hybrid social protection schemes. We can learn from Spain's Riders Law or the UK Supreme Court ruling requiring platforms to contribute to the basic rights of gig workers.
The most rational model is a joint liability scheme. Applicants are required to pay a certain percentage of social security contributions to compensate for the labor costs they have saved. This contribution is then matched with a state subsidy (PBI) or affordable driver contributions. This scheme ensures the social safety net (JKK, JKM, JHT) remains in place without eliminating the flexibility characteristic of the gig economy.
Operational Risk Redistribution
The current ecosystem is characterized by extreme externalization of risk. Vehicle depreciation, fuel costs, and the risk of accidents fall entirely on the driver. Meanwhile, app algorithms continually drive productivity with targets and bonuses that often force drivers to ignore fatigue thresholds.
IDEAS research (2023) noted that 68,9% of drivers are forced to work 9-16 hours per day for wages often below a minimum wage. Even more ironic is that when 31,6% of them experience workplace accidents, the majority must cover the costs themselves, as only 12,9% receive health insurance from the app provider. This is clear evidence of the externalization of risk, which must be ended by Presidential Regulation.
The Presidential Regulation must regulate this risk redistribution. If applicators have the power to set performance targets, they are also responsible for risks on the road. Workplace accident insurance coverage should be mandatory and automatically covered by the platform as long as the driver is on-bid (actively working), not simply an additional insurance policy deducted from the partner's balance. Transparency of app deductions is also absolutely necessary to prevent drivers' net income from being eroded by unreasonable service fees.
Access Recovery and Security Complaint
One of the darkest sides of the gig economy is the inequality in problem resolution. Consumer complaint channels are so powerful that they can instantly destroy a driver's livelihood through suspension or termination of their partnership. Conversely, drivers lack a safe channel to complain without fear of algorithmic intimidation or account bans.
The Fairwork Indonesia 2025 report states that major platforms such as Gojek, Grab, Maxim, and inDrive scored very low in the Fair Management category, mostly 0-2 out of 10 points, because they failed to provide a guaranteed appeals process for workers who were sanctioned or had their accounts terminated, indicating a lack of transparency and fairness in decision-making.
The BHR principle affirms the right to access to remedy. The Presidential Regulation mandates the establishment of an independent dispute resolution mechanism. Suspension decisions should not be entirely left to machine automation or unilateral consumer reports. A humane and transparent right to appeal mechanism must be in place. Fear of reporting is an indicator of a toxic work environment, and the state must not allow its citizens to work in fear.
Algorithmic and Data Accountability
Last but not least, data sovereignty is crucial. Currently, drivers operate under the direction of an algorithmic "black box." Why are orders suddenly low? Why are fares dropping at certain times? Why are accounts sanctioned? Everything is under wraps.
This Presidential Decree must enforce transparency and auditability of algorithms. Applicants can no longer hide behind the pretext of "trade secrets" when the algorithms affect the lives of many people. Performance data belongs to drivers, and transparency regarding order allocation and sanctions is a right that must be fulfilled.
President Prabowo's plan to sign this Presidential Regulation is a political gamble based on partisanship. Will the government bow to the lobbying of global technology corporations, or will it stand up and protect the millions of its citizens who depend on the asphalt for their livelihoods?
The transformation from exploitation to empowerment is not impossible. With the right regulations, ride-hailing can become a pillar of the economy that is not only technologically sophisticated but also humanely civilized. It's time for the government to intervene, not as a spectator, but as a fair referee.
***
This article has appeared on Katadata.co.id With the title "Waiting for a Fair Ride-Hailing Presidential Decree", Read more here: Katadata.co.id