Quo Vadis Online Couriers in Commercial Postal Service Regulation

The regulation of online transport is entering a decisive phase. The government has directed that the commission for online motorcycle taxi applications be capped at 8%. Meanwhile, in a public statement, the government indicated that the regulation of goods delivery will be placed under the Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs (Komdigi). These two signals convey one message: transporting passengers and delivering goods are two different jobs. Online motorcycle taxis are a mobility service; online couriers are a supply chain link—a continuation of postal and courier services in the digital era. Online motorcycle taxis have now been regulated. But what about the online couriers who daily deliver food, SME merchandise, and documents for millions of people? The answer must be sought in postal regulations.

For the delivery industry, Minister of Communication and Digital Affairs Regulation Number 8 of 2025 concerning Commercial Postal Services (PM 8/2025) is a long-awaited rule. Since Government Regulation 15/2013—the implementing regulation for the Postal Law—was issued, it took 12 years for the government to release a specific rule for commercial postal services. Its contents regulate matters that determine the quality of the delivery network: from technical provisions, service standards, interconnection between operators, to supervision. The direction is also correct: the postal service is positioned as a pillar of the digital economy and the flow of goods, with consumer protection and fair business competition as its objectives. A sound foundation.

Problems arise when the rule is read through an empirical lens. PM 8/2025 is indeed intended for conventional postal services. Its nine service standard items—ranging from certainty of time and cost to a guarantee of compensation at ten times the shipping fee—must be fully met, including the item on means, infrastructure, and/or facilities. For postal companies that operate via warehouses and sorting centres, this list is reasonable. However, instant couriers work with a different supply chain logic: goods move directly from sender to recipient, from point to point, coordinated by algorithms, without stopping at physical facilities. Consolidation occurs in the application, not in a warehouse. Consequently, digital goods delivery operators find it difficult—almost impossible—to fulfil all these requirements.

The regulator’s position is understandable. PP 15/2013 stipulates these service standards as a ‘minimum’ list, so PM 8/2025 indeed cannot reduce them. However, 12 years is a very long span for the delivery industry. Within that span, an evolution of postal operations was born: digital goods delivery services that have now become the lifeblood of online shopping and culinary commerce. The question is no longer whether this service needs to be regulated, but rather which legal regime is appropriate to govern it.

The stakes are not small. The on-demand service ecosystem contributes approximately Rp91.7 trillion to the Indonesian economy, according to estimates by Oxford Economics. Behind these figures lie the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of families and millions of SMEs whose sales depend on instant delivery. If the regulatory calibration is wrong, it is not just the platforms that will be disrupted, but the pulse of the digital economy itself.

Experiences from other countries point in the same direction: none burdens platform-based delivery operators with the obligation to own warehouses, sorting centres, or intercity networks. The sharpest lesson comes from China, the world’s largest delivery market, which makes a clear distinction: postal couriers are subject to licensing and the obligations of the postal regime, while point-to-point delivery has been recognised as a separate category since 2021—complete with incentives—without being forced to resemble a postal company. Vietnam has adopted a similar category separation; Singapore and the Philippines simply require operators to register as a general business; Thailand has chosen the transport route by mandating commercial vehicles. The lesson is singular: public protection is placed on service standards that anyone must fulfil.

So where does point-to-point delivery fit within our law? Viewed from its activities, the answer is simple. The Postal Law formulates the elements of a parcel service optionally: collection, acceptance, processing, transportation, and/or delivery of goods. The phrase ‘and/or’ means not all elements must be performed; merely collecting and then delivering a shipment already constitutes a parcel service. Therefore, point-to-point delivery is fundamentally part of postal operations. Before PM 8/2025 was issued, this qualification was relatively loose because service standards had not been detailed. After the standards were detailed and made fully mandatory, its status hangs in a grey area: its activity is clearly a parcel service, but some of its administrative requirements are unattainable for its business model.

It is at this juncture that the government needs to take a legal breakthrough that is actually not complicated. The activity is clearly a parcel service; what is needed is recognition of its working method. A fast track is available: namely, creating a specific arrangement that regulates point-to-point delivery entities within digital platforms without forcing them to resemble conventional postal services, reinforced by international comparisons that show the same direction. The focus should be placed on principles and end results: consumer and courier protection, shipment security, and certainty of service time standards; the means of achieving these should be left as a space for operator innovation. This categorical clarity is solely for the sake of legal certainty and protection for business actors, the user community, and driver partners. The measure of its success is simple: consumers receive increasingly reliable service, couriers gain a profession that is increasingly valued and protected. Likewise, business actors gain certainty to invest, and the state gains governance that can be enforced.