VIRTUAL CURRENCY in INDONESIA
In the last few years, businesses in Indonesia have shifted focus to the e-commerce industry, encouraging the development of practical non cash based payment instruments. Starting from bank transfers, credit cards and PayPal, virtual currency is the latest breakthrough. Virtual currency, especially bitcoin has garnered much attention and interest in Indonesia. In the past, regulation was scarce, and the government had maintained quite a firm stance against it. However, the government’s reluctance to accept virtual currency did not curb local investor’s interests. Bank Indonesia is against the sales, purchase, and trade of virtual currency because it is highly risky and speculative, considering there is no responsible authority, official administrator or underlying asset to base the value of virtual currency, while trade values are highly volatile. All the above make virtual currency vulnerable to bubble risks, rendering it susceptible to money laundering and financing acts of terrorism, which may negatively impact the stability of Indonesia’s financial system.[1] Virtual Currency (“Cryptocurrency”) is prohibited as payment instrument Pursuant to Bank Indonesia Regulation No. 18/40/PBI/2016 on the Implementation of Payment Transaction Processing (“BI Reg 18/2016”) Bank Indonesia Regulation No. 19/12/PBI/2017 on the Implementation of Financial Technology (“BI Reg 19/2017”), virtual currency is digital money issued by a party other than the monetary authority obtained by way of mining, purchase or transfer of reward, and includes Bitcoin, BlackCoin, Dash, Dogecoin, Litecoin, Nxt, Peercoin, Primecoin, Ripple, and Ven. According to this definition, electronic money is not included as virtual currency. Even though virtual currency has monetary value, they cannot be liquidated into cash. BI Reg 18/2016 prohibits the use of virtual currency in conducting payment transaction processing in Payment System Service Providers (Principals, Switching Providers, Issuers, Acquires, Payment Gateway Providers, Clearing Providers, Final Settlement Providers, and Electronic Wallet Providers). Whereas pursuant to BI Reg 19/2017, Financial Technology Providers are prohibited from conducting payment system activities using virtual currency. These regulations are based on Law No. 7 of 2011 on Currency (“Currency Law”) which states that Indonesian Rupiah is the only lawful currency in Indonesia, and that any transaction in Indonesia for the purpose of payment, the settlement of other liabilities which must be settled with money, and/or other financial transactions must use Rupiah. Virtual Currency has no governing institution The government’s stance to prohibit virtual currency is due to its decentralized nature. Instead of each transaction being approved by a central authority like a bank, virtual currency transactions are approved through a distributed ledger technology, typically known as a blockchain. Blockchain is a digital ledger distributed across a network of decentralized network of computers (or nodes) containing an increasing number of data records. Once logged onto a node, data cannot be edited, tampered, removed or revised. In order to be recorded, all new transactions go through a verification process which require all participants of the system coming to a consensus that a transaction is valid. These characteristics create trustworthy information and transparency. Blockchain can be public and non-permissioned or private and permissioned. In a public blockchain, all participants are free to add information to the blockchain. Whereas with private blockchain, access is restricted to trusted personnel. Legal Concerns Lack of Consumer Protection for Use and Ownership of Virtual Currency Virtual currency as payment instrument is issued without needing authorization from any government. Transactions and distribution can be easily performed without the need of bank account, credit card or other intermediaries. Despite the many benefits of virtual currency, there are risks to consider. Up to now, there is no insurance for virtual currencies. In the event of loss due to hacking, fraud or theft, the risks will be borne by the owner. The lost currencies can be tracked through the blockchain, however due to the anonymous or pseudonymous transactions, identifying the movement of each currency and the perpetrator would be difficult even with a unique address (or key). Moreover, all virtual currency transactions are final and immutable. Unless the offending party is identified and willing to return the stolen currencies, the owner will have difficulty recovering them. The lack of recognition from the Indonesian authorities towards virtual currency as a payment instrument limits the protection provided to users and owners in this aspect. However, on 2 October 2018, the Minister of Trade issued Regulation Number 99 of 2018 regarding General Policy on the Organization of Futures Trading for Crypto Assets declaring virtual currency as a commodity that can be traded as futures trading commodity. Further provisions will be addressed by Indonesia’s Futures Exchange Supervisory Board (“Bappebti”). Applicable Law in Smart Contracts One of the uses of implementing blockchain is to remove the necessity of involving intermediaries in a transaction by using “smart contracts”. A smart contract is a self-executing agreement stored in the blockchain as a series of codes. When the pre-configured conditions of a smart contract are met, the parties can automatically make payments or otherwise fulfill the contract. This application is limited because computer codes cannot capture concepts and principles that require subjectivity and judgement, such as force majeure events. The codes would also require constant updates due to changing circumstances. A smart contract is also unable to entirely remove the necessity of third-party involvement in a transaction unless regulation is changes. For instance, the transfer of land and shares need to be recorded in notarial deeds. A single blockchain may consist of nodes located anywhere in the world. This decentralized nature causes concern in compliance and jurisdiction. In the event of illegal transactions, pinpointing its exact location and applicable law would be challenging and time consuming. Therefore, it is essential to establish an exclusive governing law and dispute resolution clause to ensure customer protection and the rights and obligations of the parties to the agreement. Data Protection The nature of public blockchain, specifically it’s transparency and immutable data means that every transaction will be published and linked to a public key representing a particular user. Although encrypted, it is not impossible to trace a particular public key back to its IP address and subsequently
REGULASI BARU TERKAIT ANGKUTAN SEWA KHUSUS YANG BERBASIS TEKNOLOGI
Keberadaan angkutan sewa khusus yang berbasis teknologi (“Transportasi Online”) dan konvensional akhirnya membuat pemerintah melalui Kementerian Perhubungan mengambil kebijakan dengan menetapkan Peraturan Menteri Perhubungan Nomor 108 Tahun 2017 tentang Penyelenggaraan Angkutan Orang Dengan Kendaraan Bermotor Umum Tidak Dalam Trayek (“Permenhub 108”) yang mulai berlaku sejak 1 November 2017. Keberlakuan Permenhub 108 menyebabkan timbulnya pro dan kontra khususnya bagi para pengemudi Transportasi Online itu sendiri. Diketahui bahwa terdapat beberapa pengemudi Transportasi Online yang kemudian mengajukan permohonan uji materi ke Mahkamah Agung. Para pengemudi angkutan sewa khusus tersebut menilai bahwa Permenhub 108 sangat merugikan mereka karena terkesan tidak ada perbedaan antara Transportasi Online dengan transportasi konvensional. Pada akhirnya Mahkamah Agung melalui Putusan No. 15 P/HUM/18 membatalkan beberapa pasal terdapat dalam Permenhub 108. Pasal – pasal tersebut mengatur mengenai besaran tariff, kewajiban pemasangan stiker, kelengkapan dokumen perjalanan, tulisan identitas kendaraan, jumlah armada daerah, kewajiban badan usaha sebagai pemilik armada angkutan sewa khusus, larangan aplikator mempekerjakan pengemudi dan memberikan akses aplikasinya, hingga terkait masalah perizinan. Untuk mengisi kekosongan hukum tersebut, pemerintah kembali mengeluarkan aturan terbaru mengenai angkutan sewa khusus berbasis teknologi yang tercantum dalam Peraturan Menteri Perhubungan No. 118 Tahun 2018 tentang Penyelenggaraan Angkutan Sewa Khusus (“Permenhub 118”) yang akan disosialisasikan terlebih dahulu hingga Mei 2019 sebelum resmi diberlakukan pada Juni 2019. Permenhub 118 mengatur secara spesifik mengenai kriteria angkutan sewa khusus berbasis teknologi seperti pelayanan, penetapan wilayah operasi dan perencanaan kebutuhan kendaraan bermotor umum, pengusahaan angkutan sewa khusus, perizinan, tarif, penggunaan aplikasi berbasis teknologi, pengawasan, perlindungan masyarakat, peran serta masyarakat dan tata cara pengenaan sanksi administratif Secara garis besar, ketentuan-ketentuan yang diatur dalam Permenhub 118 terlihat lebih objektif. Penetapan besaran tariff kini berada di tangan pemerintah, sehingga persaingan tariff yang sering mengorbankan pengemudi antar perusahaan penyedia aplikasi Transportasi Online kini sudah tidak terjadi lagi. Kemudian agar tidak terdapat komponen – komponen yang dikorbankan seperti berkurangnya tingkat pelayanan dan keamanan maupun menyusutnya pendapatan pengemudi, pemerintah telah melarang pemberian promosi tariff, sehingga memberikan kepastian pendapatan bagi pengemudi. Kebijakan lainnya yaitu terkait dengan ketentuan pemasangan stiker pun juga telah dihapuskan, sehingga dapat mengurangi tindakan kriminal yang mungkin dapat terjadi. Salah satu aturan dari Permenhub 108 yang dihapus adalah aturan mengenai kegiatan usaha Transportasi Online yang hanya dapat diselenggarakan oleh badan hukum, sekarang dapat diselenggarakan oleh orang perorangan ataupun badan usaha perorangan. Hal ini telah mengembalikan inti dari munculnya Transportasi Online sebagai transportasi alternative ke ide semula, yaitu transportasi komersial alternative yang diselenggarakan oleh orang perorangan bukan oleh korporasi. Dengan mengembalikan kesempatan untuk menyelenggarakan Transportasi Online kepada orang perorangan, maka pemerintah telah membantu menciptakan lapangan kerja, baik utama maupun tambahan bagi individu-individu tersebut. Dari segi pelayanan, Permenhub 118 memberi perhatian kepada penumpang penyandang disabilitas dan keamanan penumpang serta pengemudi. Permenhub 118 mengatur Standar Minimal Pelayanan (SPM) yang terdiri atas enam hal. Pertama, kesetaraan seperti pemberian prioritas naik/turun kendaraan yang diberikan kepada penumpang penyandang disabilitas. Kedua, keamanan yang mewajibkan aplikator menyertakan tombol darurat (panic button) untuk pengemudi ataupun penumpang. Ketiga keselamatan, seperti kondisi fisik dan kompetensi pengemudi, waktu kerja pengemudi, serta fasilitas. Keempat keterjangkauan dengan memberikan pelayanan sesuai dengan rute perjalanan sesuai permintaan penumpang. Kelima, kenyamanan seperti kapasitas angkut hingga pakaian pengemudi juga diatur. Terakhir keteraturan, memberikan pelayanan sesuai dengan pemesanan. Dari perubahan-perubahan yang ada pada Permenhub 118, terlihat bahwa pemerintah ingin mempermudah pelaku usaha Transportasi Online (baik perusahaan aplikasi, penyedia angkutan maupun pengemudi) dengan memangkas beberapa persyaratan yang tadinya diwajibkan di peraturan sebelumnya. Selain itu, pemerintah juga menekankan pentingnya perlindungan terhadap penumpang dan pengemudi, yang terlihat dari munculnya pengaturan mengenai persyaratan recruitment dan suspension bagi pengemudi yang sebelumnya tidak diatur. Dengan adanya pengaturan terhadap recruitment, setidaknya ada suatu standar dan keseragaman antara satu pengemudi dan pengemudi yang lain dalam memberikan pelayanan terhadap penumpang. Kemudian Permenhub 118 juga mensyaratkan adanya suatu layanan pengaduan dan penyelesaian permasalahan penumpang, baik akibat dari buruknya pelayanan perusahaan aplikasi ataupun kinerja pengemudi. Dalam prakteknya nanti, penumpang yang mengalami kerugian akibat dari kinerja pengemudi (e.g kecelakaan) harus dapat menuntut ganti kerugian materiil terhadap perusahaan aplikasi dan/atau badan usaha penyedia angkutan. Fanri Tamara Associate [email protected] Vania Zerlinda Associate [email protected]
Air Carrier and State Liability to Pay Compensation to Families of Lion Air JT-610 Victims and the Families’ Rights to File Claim for Damages
On Monday, 29th October 2018 Boeing 737 Max 8 aircraft with flight number JT-610 operated by Lion Air was found crashed in the waters of Tanjung Karawang, West Java. The aircraft took off from Soekarno Hatta International Airport at 06.20 West Indonesian Time (Waktu Indonesia Barat (“WIB”) headed to Pangkal Pinang, Bangka. However, at 06.33 WIB the aircraft was reported to have lost contact. The aircraft had requested to return to base prior to its disappearance from radar. On Thursday, 1st November 2018, a joint team of divers for the evacuation of Lion Air JT-610 found the Flight Data Recorder (“FDR”), a part of the aircraft’s black box components. The other component of the black box, the Cockpit Voice Recorder (“CVR”) containing recordings of conversations between the crew and ground control has not been found because it was separated from the FDR in the crash. National Transportation Safety Committee (Komite Nasional Keselamatan Transportasi (“KNKT”)) has revealed that based on the recovered FDR, the aircraft had experienced technical problems in its flight from Denpasar to Jakarta due to failure of its air speed indicator including the Angle of Attack (“AoA”) censor, which was responsible to calculate aircraft angle against the air flow. Unfortunately the recovery of FDR has only revealed 70 – 80% of information required to determine the cause of accident. The CVR is required to reach a definitive conclusion. On 7th November 2018, Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) issued an Emergency Airworthiness Directive for Boeing 737 Max aircraft. The FAA deemed the Boeing 737 Max to have a safety issue which may be prevalent in other Boeing 737 Max aircrafts. The directive was issued to guide worldwide aviation authorities after investigations by FAA and Boeing found that the censors were not working on the Lion Air JT-610. FAA stated that the AoA censors on Lion Air JT-610 aircraft showed false data causing the pilots to have difficulties controlling the aircraft. The censors have potentially misread the aircraft aerodynamics position which resulted in it doing a nosedive and subsequently crashed. US aviation regulators have ordered a review of the Boeing aircraft safety procedures and is looking into which information had or had not been imparted by Boeing to air carriers regarding the new flight control system. The above became the basis for family of Rio Nanda Pratama, a doctor who was a victim of the crash to file lawsuit against The Boeing Company represented by US attorneys from the firm Colson Hicks Eidson and Bartlet Chen LLC. The lawsuit was filed against Boeing because as the producer of Boeing 737 Max 8 aircraft, they have neglected to inform the clients and pilots of the particular aircraft regarding the significant alteration in flight control system. Air Carrier Liability In commercial flights, the air carrier is an organization providing air transportation services to passengers or goods through a business in the form of a legal entity with the responsibility to guarantee passenger safety. In the business of air transportation, safety, convenience and on time performance are key. all air carriers are required to pay close attention to the above three principals and guarantee safety and convenience to passengers in reaching their final destination on time. In case of accidents, the cause of accident is key to determine which party is responsible. Authorities will launch investigation to determine if the cause of accident is due to human error, weather, or technical error, such as factory defect during assembly. The cause of accident will determine whether the families of victims can file claim for further damages in addition to receiving compulsory compensations from the air carrier and the state. Aviation law recognizes the following three principles in carrier liability: Presumption of Liability Air carrier is considered to be liable by passengers or cargo. The party who suffered loss is not required to proof their rights to receive indemnity. Limitation of Liability Air carrier is liable up to a certain amount. Strict Liability Air carrier is held absolutely liable with no redeeming possibility unless fault also lies on the passenger. In determining carrier liability, we need to refer to applicable laws and regulations rising from national and international laws. Indonesian law recognizes the presumption of liability, in which Lion Air is automatically held accountable and liable unless Lion Air can proof their innocence (reverse burden of proof). Pursuant to Article 141 of Law Number 1 of 2009 regarding Aviation (“Aviation Law”), Lion Air is liable for the following: Carrier shall be liable for indemnity for death of passengers, permanent defect, or injuries caused by incidents on board the aircraft and/or while getting on or off the aircraft. If the loss as mentioned in item (1) was incurred due to intentional action or fault of the carrier or any of its employees, the carrier shall be liable for damages incurred and shall not be able to use the provisions under this law to limit its liability. Any next of kin/beneficiary of the victim or the victim suffered due to air transportation incident as meant in item (2) shall submit a lawsuit to court in order to get additional compensation other than the predetermined compensation for losses. Minister of Transportation Regulation Number 77 of 2011 regarding Air Carrier Liability (“MoT Reg 77/2011”) further emphasizes that air carriers are liable for the following losses: death of passenger, permanent defect or injury; loss or damage of cabin baggage; loss, destruction or damage of registered baggage; loss, destruction or damage of cargo; delayed air transportation; and loss suffered by third party. Indemnity The sum of indemnity Lion Air is liable to pay for passenger death due to aircraft carrier shall refer to Article 3 of MoT Reg 77/2011 which states that death of passenger on board an aircraft due to accident or incidents related to air transportation is entitled to Rp 1.250.000.000 (one billion two hundred fifty million Rupiah) in indemnity per passenger, in addition next of kin/beneficiary of victims are entitled to a Rp 50.000.000 (fifty million Rupiah) benefit from the Government Insurance
Development of Digital Economy in Indonesia
Digital Economy, specifically e-commerce is currently experiencing a large market growth and thus presents immense potential to contribute to the national economic growth. This phenomenon cannot be separated from the increase of internet users in Indonesia from year to year. According to the Survey for Internet User Penetration and Behavior in Indonesia 2017 conducted by the Indonesian Internet Services Provider Association (Asosiasi Penyelenggara Jasa Internet Indonesia (”APJII”), internet users in Indonesia has reached 143,26 million from the total population of 262 million or around 54,68% of total Indonesian population. The estimated value of transaction performed in 2017 has reached 140 Trillion Rupiah. With the current market situation, Indonesian e-commerce has become one of the most in demand sector for both foreign and local investors. In an e-commerce system, 4 (four) main components are required to effect an online transaction, store/marketplace, seller and buyer, payment gateway, and delivery service. In Indonesia, platform based marketplace has just reached popularity in the last decade, whereas gateway payment has only been popular in the last 6 years. From the various foreign and local e-commerce players conducting their business in Indonesia, based on the data provided by iPrice in 2018, the top marketplaces based on the monthly website traffic, application ranking, social media follower and employee count, the ranking is as follows: Lazada Holding the first position in Indonesia with monthly traffic of more than 117.000.000 visitors, this Alibaba Group owned marketplace has more than 556.000 followers on Instagram and 22.700.000 followers on Facebook. Lazada has 1.479 employees. Tokopedia Tokopedia is a local player sitting on second place. Tokopedia has 391.000 followers on Instagram and 5.000.000 followers on Facebook with total of 1.611 employees. Bukalapak Another local player, on third place Bukalapak has monthly traffic of 93.000.000 with 258.000 followers on Instagram and 2.000.000 on Facebook. Founded by Achmad Zacky, this online marketplace has 1.233 employees spread between Jakarta and Bandung. Blibli In fourth place, as a subsidiary of Djarum Group, Blibli has monthly traffic of 45.000.000 with 167.000 Instagram followers and 7.300.000 Facebook followers. Blibli has the least amount of employees at 797. Shopee Originated from Singapore, Shopee holds the fifth place with total monthly traffic of more than 34.500.000 with 712 Instagram followers and 9.000.000 Facebook followers. Lead by Chris Feng, Shopee has 1.129 employees in Indonesia. Meanwhile, based on the survey conducted within the last 2 (two) years, the ranking of startup company according to their investment value is as follows: Go-Jek, a startup business established in 2010 with its main business being online transportation, Gojek has received around USD 3,300,000,000 in foreign investment. Tokopedia, a startup having its business as an online marketplace which allows individuals and business owners to establish online stores for free, Tokopedia has received foreign investment amounting to USD 1,100,000,000. Akulaku, a startup which provides financial services by giving out loans to its customers without the requirement of credit cards. They have received around USD 285,000,000 in foreign investment. PT Indo Lotte Makmur (iLOTTE), a joint venture between Salim Group and Lotte Group which business is in online retailing, iLOTTE has received foreign investment amounting to USD 100,000,000. Pundi X, a startup company which is a cryptocurrency retailer with around USD 35,000,000 in foreign investment. Considering the vast potential for national economic growth in e-commerse and the ability to attract foreign investors, the government has issued Presidential Regulation Number 44 of 2016 regarding Negative Investment List (“DNI 2016”) which offers great opportunities for foreign investors wanting to invest in e-commerce. Previously very limited, now foreign investors are allowed to hold 100% shares in the e-commerce sector. The stipulation is that foreign investment is only allowed for e-commerce sector where the transaction is performed though an online electronic system in the form of platform based marketplace, daily deals, price grabber or online classified ad, whereas digital retailing is still reserved for local investor especially micro, small and medium businesses (Usaha Mikrok, Kecil, dan Menengah (“UMKM”)). The issuance of DNI 2016 has also attracted Expedia, a USA based travel company to invest USD 350,000,000 in Traveloka in 2017. Alibaba, a Chinese technological giant has also invested in Indonesia in early 2018. Currently, Alibaba holds 2 (two) of the largest marketplaces in Indonesia, Tokopedia and Lazada. Amazon will also invest 14 Trillion Rupiah in Indonesia’s e-commerce sector towards the end of 2018. Regardless of the fast growing e-commerce sector, there are no adequate regulations and policies. Up till now, e-commerce policies in Indonesia relies on Law Number 7 of 2014 regarding Trade (“Trade Law”), Law Number 11 of 20078 regarding Electric Information and Transaction, and Law Number 19 of 2016 regarding the Amendment of Law Number 11 of 2008 regarding Electronic Information and Transaction (“IT Law”). In Trade Law, e-commerce is referred to as Trade Through Electronic System (Perdagangan Melalui Sistem Elektronik (“PMSE”)). As mandated in Trade Law, there is a requirement for government regulations regarding the performance of PMSE. However up until this article is published, this has not been realized and is currently still in the form of Draft Regulation regarding Commercial Transaction Through Electronic System (“PMSE Draft Regulation”) which was drafted in 2015. In the PMSE Draft Regulation, the government set forth the following requirements for the establishment of an e-commerce business: E-commerce businesses are required to have clear legal identity; Transnational transactions are required to meet the export import provisions; and E-commerce businesses are required to submit data to the Ministry of Trade. It will be interesting to observe whether or not the government will require for all e-commerce business to be registered in Indonesia. If such registration is required, all foreign e-commerce businesses, platform marketplace or payment gateway, shall be required to at least have a permanent establishment or Permanent Business Entity (Badan Usaha Tetap (“BUT”)). This will not be easy to enforce bearing in mind that most e-commerce businesses are provider of Over-the-Top (“OTT”) services which are yet to have BUT in Indonesia. In relation to Bank of Indonesia Regulation Number 19/8/PBI/2017 regarding National Payment Gateway (Gerbang
LEGISPERITUS LAWYERS LEGAL OFFICE PRESS RELEASE REGARDING THE LION AIR JT-610 ACCIDENT
Firstly we express our deepest condolences for the accident that took the lives of 189 passengers on the JT-610 Flight on 29th October 2018. The flight was operated by Lion Air using aircraft type 737 Max 8 produced by Boeing which headquarter is located in the state of Illinois, United States of America. As practitioners of aviation law, we hereby provide a thorough view regarding the liabilities of the airline and aircraft producer in regards to this accident. Liability of Air Carrier in Indonesia Pursuant to Article 141 of Law Number 1 of 2009 regarding Aviation (“Aviation Law”), Lion Air as Commercial Air Carrier is held liable for damages suffered by passenger death. The liability is implicit (strict liability) without regards to the presence or absence of fault or neglect in the operation of aircraft. Strict liability of Rp 1.250.000.000 (one billion two hundred fifty million Rupiah) for every passenger death (“Indemnity”) is regulated in The Minister of Transportation Regulation Number 77 of 2011 regarding Air Carrier Liability (“MoT Reg 77/2011”). In the instance where fault and neglect is found, the Air Carrier shall be held liable for damages incurred and the provisions under Aviation Law cannot be used to limit its liability. In addition to indemnity, next of kin/beneficiary may (i) file claim to the court (Article 141 paragraph 3 or Aviation Law) or (ii) initiate direct negotiations with the Air Carrier (Article 16 of Aviation Law) to receive a larger and unlimited sum of liability. This is further supported by Article 180 of Aviation Law and Article 23 of MoT Reg 77/2011, which stated the sum of indemnity provided for in this regulation does not cover the possibility for next of kin/beneficiary to file claim against the air carrier at any court within the area of the Republic of Indonesia or through arbitration or other alternative dispute resolution in accordance to applicable laws and regulations (“Additional Compensation”). Furthermore, next of kin/beneficiary shall also receive benefit from the Government Insurance Institution in the sum of Rp 50.000.000 (fifty million Rupiah), in accordance to provisions of (i) Law Number 33 of 1964 regarding Compulsory Passenger Liability Fund, (ii) Article 62 jo. Article 179 of Aviation Law, and (iii) Article 3 paragraph 2(a) of Minister of Finance Regulation Number 15/PMK.010/2017 regarding The Sum of Benefit and Compulsory Passenger Accident Liability Cover for Public Transportation on Land, River/Lake, Ferries/Crossings, Sea, and Air (“MoF Reg 15/PMK.010/2017”) (“Benefit”). It is important to note that the Benefit originates from Compulsory Liability Cover which premium is included in the ticket price components which cost is borne by the passengers themselves, as required in Article 118 paragraph 1(d) jo. Article 126 paragraph 3(c) of Aviation Law. In practice, the payment of Indemnity, a requirement guaranteed by the Aviation Law, is often given with the following conditions: (i) next of kin/beneficiary relinquish their rights to file claim for Additional Compensation, and (ii) sign agreement to not file claims in Indonesia and abroad against other related parties, such as aircraft producer (in this case Boeing). In this accident, the Benefit has been paid by the Government Insurance Institution, however the Indemnity has not been paid and neither the Aviation Law nor the MoT Reg 77/2011 has set a time limit for payment. Liability of Aircraft Producer JT-610 Flight is a scheduled Commercial Flight which took off from Soekarno-Hatta International Airport for its destination Depati Amir Pangkal Pinang Airport. The aircraft fell 13 minutes after takeoff, where eye witnesses reported seeing the aircraft nosedived into the Java Sea. It has been discovered that 4 previous flights have experienced problems with its Angle of Attack (“AoA”) censor. On 6th November 2018, the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”} and Boeing as producer of 737 Max 8 aircraft issued an emergency safety warning with regards to the potential malfunctioning of the AoA which may trigger the Maneuvering Characteristic Augmentation System (“MCAS”) to automatically perform a nosedive which in this case has proven to have fatal consequences. Instructions on how to resolve this malfunction is not available in the aircraft operating manual or training. This is a strong indicator that the Boeing 737 Max 8 aircraft contains a dangerous product flaw. American Aviation Law subscribes to the concept of strict liability and does not limit the sum of indemnity. In practice, the sum of indemnity or compensation awarded is larger than the Indemnity and Benefit regulated in Indonesia. Please note that in the litigation process according to the state of Illinois law (location of Boeing headquarter), applies the Rules of Discovery and Duty of Candor which allows the claimant to pursue evidence in the domicile of the defendant, and requires the defendant to give true statements. This shall provide ease in the process of facts gathering for the cause of accident. Therefore the families of victims can obtain comprehensive information and safety measures can be taken to avoid similar accidents. Many of the victims are breadwinners for their families and thus leave behind next of kin/beneficiaries who require large sums of expenses. Currently, we have partnered up with legal offices in all related jurisdictions to represent some of the victims’ next of kin/beneficiaries in obtaining better compensation other than the compulsory Indemnity and Benefit. We are open for further inquiries and consultation in regards to this matter through our email [email protected].
Perkembangan Digital Economy di Indonesia
Digital Economy, khususnya e-commerce saat ini memiliki pangsa pasar yang sangat besar dan potensial untuk membangkitkan perekonomian nasional. Hal ini tidak dapat dilepaskan dari meningkatnya pengguna internet di Indonesia dari tahun ke tahun. Menurut Survey Penetrasi dan Perilaku Pengguna Internet Indonesia Tahun 2017 oleh Asosiasi Penyelenggara Jasa Internet Indonesia (APJII), pengguna internet di Indonesia mencapai 143,26 juta jiwa dari total populasi penduduk Indonesia yang jumlahnya 262 juta jiwa, atau sekitar 54,68% dari total populasi penduduk Indonesia. Perkiraan nilai transaksi yang dilakukan oleh masyarakat Indonesia sampai tahun 2017 mencapai hingga 140 triliun Rupiah. Dengan pangsa pasar seperti ini, e-commerce di Indonesia menjadi salah satu yang sangat diminati oleh pelaku usaha baik lokal maupun asing yang berinvestasi pada sektor e-commerce. Dalam sebuah sistem e-commerce terdapat empat komponen yang diperlukan dalam melakukan transaksi online, yaitu store/marketplace, penjual dan pembeli, payment gateway, dan jasa pengiriman. Di Indonesia, wadah marketplace berbasis platform baru saja meraih kepopulerannya kurang dari 10 tahun terakhir, sementara payment gateway baru mulai populer kurang lebih 6 tahun belakangan ini. Dari sekian banyak pemain e-commerce baik lokal maupun asing yang menjalankan bisnisnya di Indonesia, sesuai dengan data survey iPrice pada tahun 2018, marketplace yang menduduki posisi teratas berdasarkan jumlah kunjungan ke website tiap bulannya, ranking aplikasi, jumlah pengikut di sosial media hingga jumlah karyawan, adalah sebagai berikut: Lazada Menduduki peringkat pertama paling top di Indonesia dengan jumlah kunjungan lebih dari 117.000.000 visit. E-Commerceyang dimiliki oleh Alibaba Group ini memiliki 556.000 pengikut Instagram dan 22.700.000 pengikut Facebook serta jumlah karyawan mencapai 1.479 orang; Tokopedia Tokopedia merupakan pemain lokal yang menduduki posisi kedua. Jumlah pengunjungnya tidak berbeda jauh dengan jumlah pengunjung Lazada yaitu 391.000 pengikut di Instagram dan 5.000.000 di pengikut Facebook, dengan jumlah karyawan 1.611 orang; Bukalapak Bukalapak juga merupakan pemain lokal yang menduduki posisi ketiga dengan jumlah pengunjung 93.000.000 setiap bulannya. Dengan 258.000 pengikut Instagram dan 2.000.000 pengikut di Facebook, e-commerce rintisan pengusaha Achmad Zacky ini memiliki 1.233 karyawan yang tersebar di Jakarta dan Bandung; Blibli Blibli, anak usaha Grup Djarum ini menduduki posisi keempat dengan jumlah pengunjung 45.000.000 tiap bulannya. Memiliki 167.000 pengikut Instagramdan 7.300.000 pengikut di Facebook.Blibli memiliki karyawan yang paling sedikit yaitu 797 orang; Shopee Berasal dari Singapura, Shopee menduduki posisi kelima dengan jumlah pengunjung lebih dari 34.500.000 setiap bulannya. Diikuti dengan 712 pengikut Instagramdan 9.000.000 pengikut Facebook. Dipimpin oleh Chris Feng, Shopee memiliki 1.129 karyawan di Indonesia. Sementara itu menurut survey dalam dua tahun terakhir, apabila ditinjau dari peringkat Startup Company berdasarkan nilai investasi yang telah ditanamkan adalah sebagai berikut: Go-Jek, merupakan startup company yang didirikan pada tahun 2010 yang bergerak di bidang transportasi online, dengan investasi asing yang telah ditanamkan kurang lebih sebesar USD 3,300,000,000; Tokopedia, merupakan startup company yang bergerak dalam bidang online marketplace yang memungkinkan individual dan pemilik bisnis untuk membuka toko online secara gratis, dengan investasi asing yang telah ditanamkan kurang lebih sebesar USD 1,100,000,000; Akulaku, merupakan startup company yang bergerak dalam jasa keuangan yang memberikan pinjaman kepada pelanggannya tanpa membutuhkan adanya kartu kredit, dengan investasi asing yang telah ditanamkan kurang lebih sebesar USD 285,000,000; PT Indo Lotte Makmur (iLOTTE), merupakan perusahaan joint venture dari Salim Grup dan Lotte Grup yang bergerak pada online retail, dengan investasi assina yang telah ditanamkan kurang lebih sebesar USD 100,000,000; Pundi X, merupakan startup company yang bergerak di bidang penjualan dan pembelian cryptocurrency, dengan investasi asing yang telah ditanamkan kurang lebih sebesar USD 35,000,000. Melihat potensi perkembangan perekonomian nasional yang besar di bidang e-commerce dan untuk menarik investor asing di bidang ini, pemerintah menerbitkan Peraturan Presiden No. 44 Tahun 2016 tentang Daftar Negatif Investasi (“DNI 2016”), yang membuka kesempatan besar bagi penanam modal asing untuk dapat berinvestasi pada sektor e-commerce. Kepemilikan asing yang sebelumnya sangat dibatasi, sekarang diperbolehkan mencapai 100%. Sebagai catatan, penanaman modal dalam sektor e-commerceyang terbuka bagi penanam modal asing hanya berlaku apabila penanam modal asing tersebut hendak melaksanakan penyelenggaraan transaksi perdagangan melalui sistem elektronik berupa marketplace berbasis platform, daily deals, price grabber atau iklan baris online, sementara kesempatan untuk perdagangan digital secara eceran masih tertutup bagi penanam modal asing karena diutamakan untuk UMKM. Dampak besar yang dihasilkan dari diterbitkannya DNI 2016 juga kemudian menarik Perusahaan travel asal Amerika Serikat yaitu Expedia, berinvestasi di Traveloka sebesar USD 350,000,000 pada tahun 2017. Perusahaan teknologi besar asal China yakni Alibaba juga berinvestasi di Indonesia pada awal tahun 2018. Saat ini Alibaba sendiri telah memegang dua marketplace terpopuler di Indonesia yakni Tokopedia dan Lazada. Tidak hanya Alibaba, pada akhir tahun 2018 dikabarkan Amazon akan berinvestasi sebesar Rp. 14.000.000.000.000 pada sektor e-commerce ini. Terlepas dari perkembangan e-commerce yang sangat pesat, peraturan terhadap kebijakan e-commerce di Indonesia masih sangat minim. Sampai dengan saat ini, kebijakan e-commerce di Indonesia masih berpedoman pada Undang-Undang Nomor 7 Tahun 2014 tentang Perdagangan (“UU Perdagangan”), Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2008 tentang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik dan Undang-Undang No. 19 Tahun 2016 tentang Perubahan Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2008 tentang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik (“UU ITE”). E-commerce dalam UU Perdagangan sendiri dikenal dengan nama Perdagangan Melalui Sistem Elektronik (“PMSE”). Sebagaimana diamanatkan dalam UU Perdagangan, diperlukan adanya peraturan pemerintah terkait pelaksanakan PMSE tersebut, namun hingga tulisan ini dipublikasikan, peraturan pemerintah terkait pelaksanaan PMSE tersebut belum ada dan masih hanya berupa Rancangan Peraturan Perundang-Undangan Transaksi Perdagangan melalui Sistem Elektronik (“RPP TPMSE”), meski RPP tersebut telah dirancang oleh Pemerintah sejak tahun 2015. Dalam RPP tersebut, Pemerintah setidaknya mensyaratkan beberapa hal terkait e-commerce, sebagai berikut: Pelaku bisnis e-commercememiliki identitas hukum yang jelas; Mewajibkan transaksi lintas Negara memenuhi ketentuan ekspor dan impor; dan Seluruh pelaku usaha e-commercewajib menyampaikan data kepada Kementerian Perdagangan. Menarik untuk dicermati apakah pemerintah akan mewajibkan seluruh pelaku bisnis e-commerceini memiliki pendaftaran di Indonesia. Apabila pendaftaran ini diwajibkan, maka seluruh pelaku bisnis e-commerce asing, baik penyedia platform marketplace ataupun payment gateway, harus setidak-tidaknya berbentuk permanent establishment atau Badan Usaha Tetap. Hal ini tentunya tidak mudah untuk diaplikasikan mengingat rata-rata pelaku bisnis e-commerce adalah penyedia jasa layanan Over-the-Top (OTT) yang tidak atau belum memiliki BUT di Indonesia. Dalam kaitannya dengan Peraturan Bank Indonesia No. 19/8/PBI/2017tentang Gerbang Pembayaran Nasional (GPN), tidak jelas apakah transaksi perdagangan internasional nantinya akan dianggap sebagai transaksi domestik mengingat adanya keharusan pelaku bisnis OTT memiliki local presence di Indonesia. Intisari dari e-commerce adalah kemudahan dan pilihan. Kemudahan berbelanja atau bertransaksi yang sangat disukai oleh konsumen, dan terdapatnya banyak pilihan barang dan jasa
Kewajiban Maskapai dan Negara untuk Memberikan Santunan Kepada Keluarga Korban Lion Air Jt610 dan Hak Keluarga untuk Mengajukan Gugatan Ganti Kerugian
Pesawat jenis boeing 737 max 8 dengan nomor penerbangan JT 610 milik Lion Air ditemukan jatuh di perairan Tanjung Karawang, Jawa Barat, Senin, 29 Oktober 2018. Pesawat tersebut terbang dari Bandara Soekarno Hatta, Banten sekitar pukul 06.20 WIB menuju Pangkal Pinang, Bangka. Namun sekitar pukul 06.33 WIB, pesawat dilaporkan kehilangan kontak. Pesawat sempat meminta return to base sebelum akhirnya hilang dari radar. Kamis, 1 November 2018, tim penyelam gabungan evakuasi pesawat Lion Air JT 610 akhirnya menemukan Flight Data Recorder (FDR) yang merupakan salah satu komponen kotak hitam (black box) pesawat Lion Air JT 610. Komponen lainnya yakni Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) yang berisi percakapan awak pesawat dengan pusat kendali di darat masih dicari oleh tim penyelam karena terpisah dari FDR akibat benturan yang terjadi saat pesawat jatuh. Komite Nasional Keselamatan Nasional (KNKT) mengungkapkan hasil temuan FDR, pesawat sempat mengalami masalah teknis pada rute penerbangan Denpasar menuju Jakarta, ditemukan kerusakan pada petunjuk kecepatan atau air speed indicator, termasuk kerusakan sensor AoA (Angle of Attack) yaitu pengukur sudut pesawat terhadap aliran udara. Akan tetapi, dengan ditemukannya FDR, tidak serta merta kemudian penyebab terjadinya kecelakaan dapat diketahui, baru sekitar 70 – 80 persen. Untuk mencapai 100 persen diperlukan CVR yang masih dalam proses pencarian. Pada 7 November 2018, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) menerbitkan Emergency Airworthiness Directive (Petunjuk Layak Terbang Darurat) untuk pesawat Boeing 737 max. FAA menilai bahwa pesawat Boeing 737 max memiliki kondisi yang tidak aman dan kondisi ini mungkin terdapat pada pesawat Boeing 737 max lainnya. Petunjuk ini dikeluarkan setelah penyelidik dari FAA dan Boeing menemukan sensor tersebut tidak berfungsi pada pesawat Lion Air JT 610, sekaligus menjadi pegangan bagi seluruh otoritas aviasi di seluruh dunia. FAA menyatakan bahwa sensor AoA pesawat Lion Air JT 610 menampilkan data yang salah sehingga menyebabkan pilot pesawat kesulitan untuk mengendalikan pesawat. Sensor kemungkinan salah membaca posisi aerodinamis pesawat yang membuatnya menukik tajam ke bawah, sehingga kehilangan ketinggian dan menabrak area di bawahnya. Para regulator penerbangan AS telah memerintahkan peninjauan kembali terhadap prosedur keselamatan pesawat Boeing dan mencari tahu mengenai informasi apa saja yang telah disampaikan atau pun tidak disampaikan kepada maskapai penerbangan mengenai sistem kendali penerbangan yang baru ini. Hal tersebut di atas yang kemudian menjadi dasar bagi keluarga Rio Nanda Pratama, seorang dokter yang menjadi korban tewas mengajukan gugatan terhadap The Boeing Company didampingi pengacara Amerika Serikat dari firma hukum Colson Hicks Eidson dan BartletChen LLC. Gugatan keluarga Rio Nanda Pratama kepada Boeing diajukan karena pembuat pesawat boeing 737 Max 8 yang digunakan dalam penerbangan JT 610, telah gagal memperingatkan klien dan pilot pesawat jenis itu mengenai perubahan sistem kontrol penerbangan yang signifikan. I. Tanggung Jawab Maskapai Dalam penerbangan komersil, maskapai penerbangan merupakan sebuah organisasi yang menyediakan jasa penerbangan bagi penumpang atau barang yang dikelola dalam suatu badan usaha dalam bentuk badan hukum yang mana salah satu kewajiban utama adalah menjamin keselamatan terhadap penumpang. Dalam bisnis jasa penerbangan selalu dikenal istilah safety (keselamatan), convenient (kenyamanan) dan on time performance (tepat waktu). Artinya, setiap maskapai penerbangan harus memperhatikan ketiga prinsip tersebut untuk menjamin keamanan dan kenyamanan penumpang sampai ke tempat tujuan dengan tepat waktu. Dalam hal terjadi kecelakaan, faktor penyebab kecelakaan pesawat menjadi hal yang sangat penting untuk dijadikan dasar siapa pihak yang harus bertanggungjawab atas kecelakaan pesawat tersebut. Berkaitan dengan hal itu tentunya perlu dilakukan penyelidikan pihak berwenang untuk menentukan penyebab kecelakaan tersebut apakah terjadi karena faktor cuaca, human error, faktor teknis termasuk adanya cacat pabrik dalam perakitan pesawat. Penyebab kecelakaan menentukan apakah keluarga korban, selain mendapatkan santunan kematian yang wajib diberikan oleh pihak maskapai dan negara, juga berhak mengajukan tuntutan ganti kerugian, dalam hal kecelakaan tersebut terjadi akibat adanya cacat pabrik dalam perakitan pesawat atau human error termasuk kesalahan dari pengangkut atau orang yang diperkerjakannya. Hukum penerbangan udara mempunyai 3 (tiga) prinsip dalam pertanggungjawaban pengangkut, yaitu: a. Presumption of Liability Pengangkut dianggap bertanggung jawab oleh penumpang atau kargo. Pihak yang dirugikan tidak perlu membuktikan haknya atas ganti rugi; b. Limitation of Liability Tanggung jawab pengangkut dibatasi sampai jumlah tertentu; c. Strict Liability Pengangkut dianggap selalu bertanggung jawab tanpa ada kemungkinan membebaskan diri kecuali juga terdapat kesalahan pada korban; Dalam menentukan pertanggungjawaban perusahaan penerbangan tentunya harus mengacu pada ketentuan-ketentuan yang berlaku, baik yang bersumber pada hukum nasional maupun pada hukum internasional. Di dalam hukum nasional, tanggung jawab pengangkut menggunakan prinsip tanggung jawab praduga bersalah (presumption of liability), oleh karena itu Lion Air otomatis bertanggung jawab, kecuali pihak Lion Air dapat membuktikan tidak bersalah (pembuktian terbalik). Mengingat Lion Air otomatis bertanggung jawab, maka berdasarkan Pasal 141 Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 2009 tentang Penerbangan (“UU Penerbangan”) kewajiban Lion Air sebagai pengangkut adalah sebagai berikut: 1) pengangkut bertanggung jawab atas kerugian penumpang yang meninggal dunia, cacat tetap, atau luka-luka yang diakibatkan kejadian angkutan udara di dalam pesawat dan/atau naik turun pesawat udara, 2) Apabila kerugian sebagaimana yang dimaksud pada ayat (1) timbul karena tindakan sengaja atau kesalahan dari pengangkut atau orang yang diperkerjakannya, pengangkut bertanggung jawab atas kerugian yang timbul dan tidak dapatmempergunakan ketentuan dalam undang-undang ini untuk membatasi tanggung jawabnya. 3) Ahli waris atau korban akibat kejadian angkutan udara sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (2) dapat melakukan penuntutan ke pengadilan untuk mendapatkan ganti kerugian tambahan selain ganti kerugian yang telah di tetapkan. Selain itu kewajiban Lion Air sebagai pengangkut diatur dalam Peraturan Menteri Perhubungan No. 77 Tahun 2011 tentang Tanggung Jawab Pengangkutan Angkutan Udara (“Permenhub 77/2011”), Pengangkut yang mengoperasikan pesawat udara wajib bertanggung jawab atas kerugian terhadap : penumpang yang meninggal dunia, cacat tetap atau luka-luka; hilang atau rusaknya bagasi kabin; hilang, musnah, atau rusaknya bagasi tercatat; hilang, musnah, atau rusaknya kargo; keterlambatan angkutan udara; dan kerugian yang di derita oleh pihak ketiga II. Besaran Ganti Rugi Jumlah batas ganti kerugian yang diberikan Lion Air kepada penumpang yang meninggal dunia akibat dari kecelakaan pesawat udara merujuk pada Pasal 3 Permenhub 77/2011 yang menyatakan bahwa, Penumpang yang meninggal dunia di dalam pesawat udara akibat kecelakaan pesawat udara atau kejadian yang semata-mata ada hubungannya dengan pengangkutan udara diberi ganti kerugian sebesar Rp. 1.250.000.000,00 (satu milyar dua ratus lima puluh juta Rupiah) per penumpang, ditambah dengan besaran santunan yang berhak
SIARAN PERS KANTOR HUKUM LEGISPERITUS LAWYERS TERKAIT KECELAKAAN LION AIR JT-610
Pertama-tama kami menyatakan bela sungkawa yang terdalam atas kecelakaan yang merenggut nyawa 189 penumpang Pesawat Udara JT-610 pada tanggal 29 Oktober 2018 yang lalu. Pesawat tersebut dioperasikan oleh Maskapai Lion Air menggunakan Pesawat Terbang tipe 737 Max 8 yang diproduksi oleh Boeing yang berkantor pusat di negara bagian Illinois, Amerika Serikat. Sebagai praktisi hukum aviasi, kami ingin memberikan pandangan yang lebih menyeluruh mengenai pertanggungjawaban maskapai dan produsen Pesawat Udara sehubungan dengan kecelakaan ini. Tanggung Jawab Pengangkut Udara di Indonesia Menurut ketentuan Pasal 141 Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 2009 tentang Penerbangan (“UU Penerbangan”), Maskapai Lion Air sebagai Pengangkut Angkutan Udara Niaga memiliki tanggung jawab atas kerugian penumpang yang meninggal dunia. Tanggung jawab Pengangkut dalam hal ini bersifat mutlak (strict liability) tanpa mempertimbangkan ada atau tidaknya suatu kesalahan atau kelalaian dalam mengoperasikan Pesawat Udara. Besarnya tanggung jawab ini diatur dalam Peraturan Menteri Perhubungan No. 77 Tahun 2011 tentang Tanggung Jawab Pengangkutan Angkutan Udara (“Permenhub 77/2011”), yaitu sebesar Rp 1.250.000.000 satu milyar dua ratus lima puluh juta Rupiah) per penumpang meninggal dunia (“Ganti Rugi”). Apabila ada kesalahan atau kelalaian, maka Pengangkut bertanggung jawab atas kerugian yang timbul dan tidak dapat mempergunakan ketentuan dalam UU Penerbangan untuk membatasi tanggung jawabnya. Selain Ganti Rugi, ahli waris dapat (i) mengajukan gugatan ke pengadilan (Pasal 141 ayat 3), atau (ii) melakukan negosiasi langsung dengan Maskapai (Pasal 166 UU Penerbangan) untuk mendapatkan ganti kerugian yang lebih besar dan jumlahnya tidak dibatasi. Hal ini diperkuat dengan ketentuan Pasal 180 UU Penerbangan dan Pasal 23 Permenhub 77/2011, yang menyebutkan bahwa besaran ganti kerugian yang diatur dalam peraturan ini tidak menutup kesempatan kepada ahli waris untuk menunjuk pengangkut ke pengadilan negeri di dalam wilayah Negara Kesatuan Republik Indonesia atau melalui arbitrase atau alternatif penyelesaian sengketa lain sesuai ketentuan peraturan perundang-undangan (“Kompensasi Tambahan”). Disamping itu, ahli waris juga menerima santunan dari Lembaga Asuransi Pemerintah sebesar Rp 50.000.000 (lima puluh juta Rupiah), sesuai dengan ketentuan (i) UndangUndang Nomor 33 Tahun 1964 tentang Dana Pertanggungan Wajib Penumpang, (ii) Pasal 62 jo. Pasal 179 UU Penerbangan, dan (iii) Pasal 3 ayat (2) huruf a Peraturan Menteri Keuangan No. 15/PMK.010/2017 tentang Besar Santunan dan Iuran Wajib Dana Pertanggungan Wajib Kecelakaan Penumpang Alat Angkutan Penumpang Umum di Darat, Sungai/Danau, Feri/Penyeberangan, Laut, dan Udara (Permenkeu 15/PMK.010/2017) (“Santunan”). Perlu diketahui bahwa Santunan berasal dari Iuran Wajib Dana Pertanggungan yang preminya termasuk dalam komponen harga tiket yang dibebankan kepada penumpang sendiri, sebagaimana diwajibkan dalam Pasal 118 ayat (1) huruf d jo. Pasal 126 ayat (3) huruf c UU Penerbangan. 2 Dalam praktiknya, pemberian Ganti Rugi, yang memang merupakan kewajiban yang dijamin oleh UU Penerbangan, seringkali diberikan dengan syarat (i) agar ahli waris melepaskan hak untuk mengajukan gugatan atas Kompensasi Tambahan, dan (ii) menandatangani perjanjian untuk tidak mengajukan gugatan di Indonesia dan di luar negeri, terhadap pihak-pihak terkait lainnya seperti produsen Pesawat Udara (dalam hal ini Boeing). Dalam kecelakaan ini Santunan telah dibayarkan oleh Lembaga Asuransi Negara, namun sayangnya Ganti Rugi belum dibayarkan dan tidak ada batas waktu pembayaran yang diatur oleh UU Penerbangan dan Permenhub 77/2011. Tanggung Jawab Produsen Pesawat Udara Penerbangan JT 610 adalah Penerbangan Udara Niaga terjadwal yang lepas landas dari Bandar Udara Internasional Soekarno-Hatta dengan tujuan Bandar Udara Depati Amir, Pangkal Pinang. Pesawat Udara tersebut jatuh 13 menit setelah lepas landas, di mana saksi mata melihat hidung Pesawat menukik tajam ke bawah hingga akhirnya menghantam perairan Laut Jawa. Diketahui pada 4 penerbangan sebelumnya, ada permasalahan dengan sensor Angle of Attack (AoA). Pada tanggal 6 November 2018, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) dan Boeing sebagai produsen Pesawat Udara 737 Max 8 mengeluarkan peringatan keselamatan darurat bahwa potensi malfungsi pada AoA dapat memicu Maneuvering Characteristic Augmentation System (MCAS) untuk secara otomatis memerintahkan gerakan menukik yang dalam hal ini berakibat fatal. Cara mengatasi malfungsi ini sebelumnya tidak tersedia di dalam petunjuk pengoperasian pesawat maupun pelatihan pengoperasian pesawat. Hal-hal ini merupakan indikator kuat bahwa Pesawat Udara Boeing 737 Max 8 memiliki cacat produk yang sangat berbahaya. Hukum Aviasi Amerika Serikat menganut konsep pertanggungjawaban mutlak (strict liability) dan tidak membatasi besaran ganti kerugian. Pada praktiknya, besaran ganti rugi atau kompensasi yang diberikan akan berjumlah jauh lebih besar dibandingkan Ganti Rugi dan Santunan. Perlu diketahui, dalam proses litigasi menurut Hukum Negara Bagian Illinois (lokasi markas besar Boeing) terdapat Rules of Discovery dan Duty of Candor yang mana memungkinkan penggugat menelusuri bukti-bukti di tempat tergugat, dan wajib diberikan keterangan yang benar dari tergugat. Hal ini akan sangat memudahkan proses penelusuran pencarian fakta akan penyebab kecelakaan. Sehingga keluarga korban dapat memperoleh informasi yang menyeluruh dan langkah-langkah pengamanan dapat diambil untuk menghindari kecelakaan serupa di kemudian hari. Banyak korban yang merupakan tulang punggung keluarga dan meninggalkan ahli waris yang membutuhkan banyak biaya. Saat ini kami bersama-sama dengan beberapa kantor hukum di semua jurisdiksi terkait, mewakili sejumlah ahli waris korban dalam mendapatkan kompensasi yang lebih baik, selain Ganti Rugi dan Santunan yang memang bersifat wajib. Kami membuka kesempatan untuk mendapatkan informasi lebih lanjut dan berkonsultasi mengenai hal ini, melalui e-mail kami [email protected].
Operating a Business of Over-the-Top (OTT) Service in Indonesia
The number of internet users in Indonesia has been rapidly growing over the past years. Google, Facebook, Twitter and Whatsapp have all seen Indonesia as a big market. As of March this year, the number of Twitter accounts reached 328 million globally, representing a 14% increase from the same period last year. Indonesia emerged as the fifth-largest country in terms of Twitter users, with 4.1 billion tweets having originated here last year. Based on the intent to protect Indonesian consumer, Indonesian government will regulate the activity of foreign information and technology companies. The government is now requiring that all OTT service provider to have a presence in Indonesia. The new regulation is currently being drafted and to accommodate the needs of some guidance, Ministry of Communication and Informatics has enacted s Circular Letter Number 3 of 2016 regarding Provision of Applications and/or Content Services Over the Internet (“Circular Letter 3/2016”). Pursuant to the Circular OTT services are defined and differentiated as the following: 1. Application Services via the Internet It refers to the use of telecommunication services over an internet protocol based telecommunication network which enables the creation of communication services in the form of short messages, voice calls, video calls, online chatting, financial and commercial transactions, data storage and collection, games, social networking and media and their derivatives; 2.Content Services over the Internet It refers to all forms of digital information consisting of writing, sound, images, animation, music, video, films, games or combination of part and/or all of the above including those of which are streamed or downloaded, by using telecommunication services via an internet protocol-based telecommunication network; 3. Application Service Providers and/or Content Over Internet (Over the Top), (“OTT Service Provider”) It is the provider of Application Services over the Internet and/or providers of Content Services over the Internet; Indonesian national or entity as well as foreign national or entity is able to undertake the business of providing application and/or contents over the internet. In case foreigner, it must establish and register a business entity for the purpose of undertaking such business. Foreigner may establish a fully operational foreign investment company or a permanent establishment. Permanent Establishment The term of permanent establishment or Badan Usaha Tetap (“BUT”) is introduced in Indonesian taxation laws. Income Tax Law defines BUT as an establishment used by an individual/entity who does not reside in Indonesia, an individual who has been present in Indonesia for not more than 183 (one hundred and eighty three) days within any period of 12 (twelve) months, or an entity which is established outside Indonesia and is not domiciled in Indonesia but conducting business or carrying out activities in Indonesia. The activity undertaken by a permanent establishment must be performed more than sixty days within twelve consecutive months. The form of permanent establishment pursuant to Income Tax Law jo Circular Letter 4/2017 may be as (1) management office, branch office, representative office, office building, factory, workshop, warehouse/storage facility, marketing and promotion space; (2) mining and exploration, oil and gas contract of work; (3) fishery, farmhouse, agriculture, plantation or forestry; (4) construction project, installation or assembling; (5) service provider of any kind by an employee or others; (6) person or entity acting as dependent agent. To be categorized as permanent establishment, an entity must have a place of business that may be in the form of premises, facilities or installation; such place of business is fixed or permanent; such fixed place of business is utilized to undertake business activity in Indonesia; BUT is divided into 3 (three) parts i.e (1) a place owned, hired, or used by a foreign tax subject to conduct business or carrying out activities in Indonesia; (2) any kind of services provided by employees or any other persons, provided that the services were done in more than 60 (sixty) days within a period of 12 (twelve) months; (“BUT Services Provider”); (3) an individual or entity acting as a dependent agent (“BUT Agent”). The permanent establishment covers the place where the whole of the place fulfills the requirements as a permanent establishment, provided that it is permanent and is used to conduct business or conduct activities of foreign tax subject. BUT Services Provider and BUT Agent shall not require the existence of a permanent establishment. An OTT Service Provider falls under category 1 whereas foreign tax subject is carrying out activities in Indonesia. Despite Income Tax Law categorizes permanent establishment as a foreign tax subject, Ministry of Finance treats permanent establishment undertaking a business as OTT service provider in Indonesia, as domestic tax subject. It states that the determination of taxation rights on the taxable income of a foreign tax subject derived from a partner country or jurisdiction of a double tax treaty[1] partner is based on the existence of a permanent establishment. Profit received or obtained from business or activity by a foreign tax subject may only be tax imposed in Indonesia as long as the business or activity of the foreign tax subject is conducted through a permanent establishment in Indonesia. A permanent establishment may be in the form of management office, branch office, representative office, etc. Based on Indonesian legal terms, management office and representative office are all considered as foreign company representative office. Foreign Company Representative Office It is a representative of an overseas company. It usually has limited functionality and generally is prohibited from directly engaging in operational activities; signing contracts; issuing official invoices; receiving payments from its clients; and directly engaging in any other profit generating activities. In addition to the limited activity, KPPA and KP3A can only exist for a definite period of time. Fully operational foreign investment company (“PT PMA”) on the other hand is allowed to undertake unlimited legal business activity for indefinite period of time. Considering business model of most OTT service providers – providing service of digital content – and the lack of regulation, a permanent establishment will be sufficient to meet the requirement. Author: Marini Sulaeman Managing Partner – [email protected] Vania Zerlinda Associate – [email protected]
Multi-Asset Investment Fund in the Form of Collective Investment Contract
In order to support infrastructure development and maximize the role of capital market as a source of long term financing, the Financial Services Authority (Otoritas Jasa Keuangan or “OJK”) regulated OJK Regulation No. 4/POJK.04/2017 (“POJK 4/2017”) regarding Multi-Asset Investment Fund in the form of Collective Investment Contract. The regulation focuses on the collection of funds from specific Financiers to be invested in investment portfolios other than securities by investment managers. Multi-Asset Investment Fund is an investment vehicle which consists of a diverse mix of asset classes and styles in one investment portfolio. Law Number 8 of 1995 regarding the Capital Market (“Capital Market Law∫”), recognizes two types of Multi-Asset Investment Funds, in the form of corporation or in the form of collective investment contract (“CIC”). This approach increases the probability of meeting Financiers’ investment goals. In the case of CIC, Investment Managers are tasked with ensuring that the portfolio represents the best available risk and return trade-offs based on assessment of return sources and current market dynamics. This investment vehicle can provide diversifying factors within a precise asset allocation, which garners specific outcome based on the Financier’s objectives. The Participation Unit for Multi-Asset Investment Fund may be traded in the Indonesian Stock Exchange, however it may not be introduced through public offering, because it is intended for prospective investors with high net worth surpassing the capacity of the conventional capital market. The Multi-Asset Investment Fund aims to provide professional investment portfolio management services for large sum investments. POJK 4/2017 regulates management guidelines, Collective Investment Contract, disclosure documentation, valuation of security portfolio or other investment portfolio, registration, reporting by Custodian Bank, and dissolution of the Multi-Asset Financial Fund. Investment Managers, who manages security portfolios or collective investment portfolios, may sell Participation Units through Mutual Fund Agents, who shall make offers to prospective Financiers in the forms of direct meeting, letter, or electronic media. Such activity must be based on an agreement between the Investment Manager and Mutual Fund Agents. The Capital Market Law describes that Investment Fund may be open-ended or close-ended. An open-ended Investment Fund may sell and repurchase shares from investors up to the amount of its authorized capital. Whereas a close-ended Investment Fund may not repurchase shares from its shareholders. A close-ended Investment Fund is only applicable to Multi-Asset Investment Fund in the form or corporation, which means all Multi-Asset Investment Fund in the form of CIC is open-ended. The Net Asset Value is set to open at Rp 1.000,00 (one thousand Rupiah) and US$ 1.00 (one United States of America Dollar) or EUR 1 (one Euro) if assigned in foreign currency. The initial value of the fund shall at least be Rp 50.000.000.000,00 (fifty billion Rupiah). The equivalent of such value shall apply also to foreign currency in accordance to Bank Indonesia middle rate published at the time of the transaction. The initial investment deposit may include security portfolio and/or other investment portfolio valuing at Rp 50.000.000.000,00 (fifty billion Rupiah). For such purpose, the security portfolio shall be valued based on market value calculated in accordance to methods referencing legislations in the field of Capital Market, whereas other investment portfolio shall be valued based on market value by independent appraiser appointed by the Investment Manager. Article 7 of POJK 4/2017 set out several requirements for Investment Managers, particularly to have in employment at least 1 (one) person certified as a Chartered Financial Analyst (“CFA”) and to have an investment committee tasked with establishing Multi-Asset Investment Fund policies and strategies as well as to oversee the whole investment up to the divestment or termination of the Collective Investment Contract. Investment portfolio in a Multi-Asset Investment Fund may be in the form of securities published and offered or not through public offering, listed or traded in the stock exchange, and/or securities not listed or traded in the stock exchange, money market instruments, deposits, derivative instruments, other financial instruments approved by OJK, property or real estate, infrastructure assets, warehouse receipts, and other investment infrastructures valid according to prevailing laws and regulations. In such instances, Investment Managers are obligated to come up with risk diversification strategy and liquidation management for security portfolio and/or other investment portfolio which are assets in a Multi-Asset Investment Fund. In managing the Multi-Asset Investment Fund, Investment Managers must not (1) publish debt securities, (2) make assignment in investment instruments in money market and/or in investment outside of the money market outside the territory of the Republic of Indonesia as defined in Law Number 11 of 2016 regarding Tax Amnesty and its implementing regulations, and (3) invest in other Multi-Asset Investment Funds. Investment Managers shall not be affiliated to the Custodian Bank unless in circumstances where the affiliation is due to direct investment by the Government of the Republic of Indonesia. In relation to the Collective Investment Fund, the Custodian Bank is tasked with separating Multi-Asset Investment Fund assets with assets of the Investment Manager, book keeping and preparing reports in relation to the Multi-Asset Investment Fund which shall be submitted to OJK. All Collective Investment Contracts must be notarized and registered to OJK no later than 10 (ten) days after the date of signing. Termination of such contract save by order from OJK must be notified to OJK no later than 5 (five) days after the signing of the termination agreement between the Investment Manager and Custodian Bank. The investment scheme used for the distribution of funds to infrastructure projects utilizes the existing capital market scheme. Multi-Asset Investment Fund is a way to provide the liquidity required in supporting non-APBN (Indonesian State Budget) infrastructure funding. It is expected to encourage stunted fiscal growth and help fulfill the market’s need for a one-stop solution product. The publication of POJK 4/2017 is one of the government’s efforts to increase the role of domestic capital market as a long-term financing source, especially for the nation’s growing infrastructure development. It is also a way to encourage healthy competition in Indonesia’s investment management industry while overcoming financial deadlocks and challenging
