---

Principal Applicant Ridha Sjartina, Samuel Bonaparte and Satrio Laksono (right-left) delivered petition points at judicial review session on Act of Consumer Protection, on Tuesday (9/6) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ganie

 

 

The Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi –MK) held judicial review session on Act Number 8 Year 1999 of Consumer Protection (Undang-Undang Perlindungan  Konsumen –UU Perlindungan Konsumen). The case listed in number 65/PUU-XIII/2015 was filed by three Indonesian citizens on behalf of Samuel Bonaparte, Ridha Sjartina, and Satrio Laskoro. The Applicant reviewed the provision on Article 4 letter c and Article 7 letter a Act of Consumer Protection which stated:

 

Article 4 letter c:

 “Consumer rights are: c. Rights to gain correct, clear, and honest information on the condition and guarantee of goods and or service.”

(“Hak Konsumen adalah: c. Hak atas informasi yang benar, jelas, dan jujur mengenai kondisi dan jaminan barang dan/ atau jasa.”)

 Article 7 letter a:

 “Businessman liabilities are: a. Have good intention in conducting their business.”

(“Kewajiban Pelaku Usaha adalah: a. Beritikad baik dalam melakukan kegiatan usahanya.”)

 

Samuel as Applicant I said Article 4 letter c related the consumer rights didn’t listed the consumer right to gain correct and complete information on behalf of legal entity and its domicile of the goods or services purchased. It was similar with Article 7 Act of Consumer Protection in which the producers didn’t required to list the name and domicile of legal entity who in charge of the products or services which they sold.

“For example, if we get on the plane or go to a hospital, we don’t know the name of legal entity in charge. We don’t know who responsible for the products or services. If there is a loss or dispute, consumer would be very difficult to conduct a lawsuit,” explained him at the inaugural session of this case which led by Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo on Tuesday (9/6) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building.

Samuel suffered concrete loss when malpractice occurred on his son who treated at a hospital. However in the trial, the hospital used error in persona exception due to different legal entity who responsible for the error. But, he never knew which legal entity referred.

In addition, the Applicant assumed Article 7 letter a Act of Consumer Protection didn’t explicitly stated what kind of good intention should be done by businessmen, included in listing/announcing legal entity which in charge of goods or services produced or sold. The Article only stated the liability of businessmen to have good intention without giving indicator of good intention, so it cannot provide legal certainty to the costumer.  

Based on the argument, the Applicant requested to the Court to declare Article 4 letter c and Article 7 letter a Act of Consumer Protection contrary to the 1945 Constitution, along it didn’t interpreted as “including the right to gain information on the legal entity and its domicile who in charge of the goods or services produced and or sold”.

Responding the petition, Justice Panel advised to the Applicant to elaborate constitutional loss which occurred due to the norms filed. “This petition is suitable because it is on behalf of the consumer. However, the potential loss of Applicant II and Applicant III should also be elaborated,” said Constitutional Justice Patrialis Akbar.

Patrialis also advised to the Applicant to explain concrete cases which caused the constitutional loss suffered, thus Act of Consumer Protection was considered couldn’t provide protection to individual who willing to sue. (Lulu Hanifah/Prasetyo Adi N)

---