The Constitutional Court again held reviewing Act 8 of 1999 on Consumer Protection on Tuesday (31 / 1), at the Plenary Room. The trial is registered with the stars. The case 74/PUU-IX/2011 entered the fourth session of listening to statements of the Government, Parliament, and Witness / Expert from the Petitioner and the Government.

In a session chaired by the Deputy Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Achmad Sodiki, the Government presented two experts, namely Bernadeth M. Waluyo and Eva Aryani Zulfa. Bernadeth in his statement reveals the object of criminalization in Law PK is not an arbitrary act to discredit someone or institution for which criminalized the act and that too must go through the rules. The way to protect the consumer by including in the legislation regulating the conduct of business, that's the principle adopted by the legislator to give protection to consumers.

"Act on Consumer Protection provides protection to consumers of article 8, paragraph (1) item j is a general rule. Author of Law felt the need to make laws that include criminal sanctions. With regard to the criminalization of civil acts occurred two legislations and judicial manner. Inconsistency in law enforcement cannot be be the reason that Article 8 paragraph (1) letter j cannot be a reason otherwise not have binding legal force, "explained Bernadeth.

Meanwhile, Eva Aryani Zulfa Petitioner argued reveal problems not related to the formulation of article, but relates to the application of law in society. "Issues related to inclusion of the Petitioner did not sanction the formula in the Act, but rather the application of the law in the field," he explained.

In his petition, the Petitioner in this case, namely the Indonesian Advocate Organization represented by the Principal Applicant, General Chief of OAI, Virza Hizzal Roy. In previous trials Virza said that Article 62 paragraphs (1) jo Article 8 paragraph (1) Consumer Protection Act letter j is a legalized form of criminalization through legislation. The way to protect the consumer was by including in the legislation regulating the behavior of businesses that are shared by the legislator to provide protection to consumers. Virza as the defendant's attorney on iPad case of Dian Yudha Negara and Randy Lester Samusamu, considered that the second article is vague (not sure) so potentially multiple interpretations. (Lulu Anjarsari / mh/Yazid.tr)