Applicant’s Expert Syarifuddin Mahmudsyah and Hadi Subhan deliver testimony at judicial review session on Act of Electricity, on Monday (16/11) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ganie
Inefficiency management of state-owned electricity company PLN doesn’t justify electricity management transfer to private sector. The PLN shall be improved in order to prevent monopoly practice conducted by private sector, which already occurred in Philippines. Applicant’s Expert Syarifuddin Mahmudsyah delivers the statements at judicial review session on Act Number 30 Year 2009 of Electricity (UU Ketenagalistrikan), on Monday (16/11) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building.
“When private sector controlled electricity in Philippines, it turned out that electricity tariff increased more than 100%. Barons controlled electricity in Phillipines. Do we want the barons control electricity in Indonesia? We should rethink about it, don’t let the barons control electricity in Indonesia if electricity management handed by private sector,” said Mahmudsyah to Justice Panel led by Chief Justice Arief Hidayat.
“The electricity development in Philippines from 1992 until 2009 went worse. It didn’t well-spread throughout the country and its tariff was increased more than 100%,” said Mahmudsyah.
Syarifuddin also compares electricity supply in several countries. “In China, electricity supply could reach 2140 dollar per capita. The supply in Indonesia recently is only 4000 dollar per capita. Our electrification ratio is still low,” said Mahmudsyah.
The Applicant also summons another Expert Hadi Subhan. Subhan explains that outsourcing workers are needed in supporting tasks, not in main tasks of a company. “Outsourcing workers conduct supporting tasks, but they are not allowed to conduct main tasks. Why supporting tasks allowed being outsourced? It because outsourcing not a focus of a company. A company may concentrate more on its objectives if it uses outsourcing workers for conducting supporting tasks,” Hadi explained.
As known, the Applicants in Case Number 111/PUU-XIII/2015 are Adri and Eko Sumantri as Chairman and Secretary General of PLN Workers Union. They review Article 10 (2), Article 16 (1), Article 33 (1), Article 34 (5), and Article 56 (2) Act of Electricity. The Applicants argue Article 10 (2), Article 33 (1), Article 34 (5), Article 56 (2) Act of Electricity cause private sectors, either national company, multinational company, or individuals, able to control public needs. The Applicant further says that the State could possibly lose its rights on electricity.
According to the Applicants, the substance of Article 10 (2), Article 33 (1), Article 34 (5), and Article 56 (2) Act a quo regulates on unbundling electrical management by implementing healthy business principles, different electricity tariff, and giving chance for private sectors. The Applicants assess such provision is a repetition of Article 8 (2), Article 16, Article 17 (3), and Article 68 Act Number 20 Year 2002 of Electricity which previously have been annulled by the Constitutional Court in Court Verdict No. 001-021-022/PUU-I/2003.
Moreover, the Applicants argue the phrase ‘healthy business principles’ (‘prinsip usaha sehat’) in Article 33 (1) and the phrase ‘differently’ (‘secara berbeda’) in Article 34 (5) Act of Electricity indicate the intention of agreement between business entities in determining electricity tariff. Based on such argumentation, the Applicant considers that there are some variables which affect electricity tariff, such as profit for business entities and cartelization potential. (Nano Tresna Arfana/IR/Prasetyo Adi N)
Monday, November 16, 2015 | 18:07 WIB 99