---

 

There is no contradiction between the Elucidation of Act No. 23 Year 2014 on Regional Governance and Article 14 (1) Act No. 8 Year 1999 on Consumer Protection, the Home Affairs Ministry’s legal bureau head Widodo Sigit Pujianto delivered in further session of Case No. 3/PUU-XV/2017, on Monday (20/2).

Representing the Government, Widodo argued the elucidation regulates authority on consumer protection implementation, while Article 14 (1) regulates establishment of Consumer Dispute Settlement Agency (Badan Penyelesaian Sengketa Konsumen/BPSK) in regional level.

“No dissolution on city/regency consumer dispute settlement agency indicates that regulation of authority on consumer protection implementation authorized by provincial government, as stipulated in elucidation of Act on Regional Governance, doesn’t intended to terminate  the programs of city/regency consumer dispute settlement agency. Instead, the regulation merely regulates provincial government’s authority which affected on budget transition on the BPSK; it becomes attached on provincial budget from previously regency budget,” said Widodo.

The Government argued that Article 408 Act on Regional Governance has regulated that entire legislation related to regional governance implementation is still in force as long as it isn’t replaced and not contrary to Act on Regional Governance.

“Therefore, entire legislation related to regency/city government’s authority is obliged to Act on Regional Governance, including authority on consumer protection implementation, unless specified otherwise or not regulated in Act on Regional Governance,” said Widodo.

Moreover, Widodo explained that the norm of Article 1 number 1 Act on Consumer Protection regulates that consumer protection is entire attempts to ensure legal certainty that gives protection to consumers.

“It is clear that consumer dispute settlement is covered in the scope of consumer protection. Therefore due to implementation of consumer protection is authorized to provincial government, it is certain that the budget of its implementation, including dispute settlement, is burdened to provincial government,” said Widodo.

Widodo said Article 33 (4) the 1945 Constitution stated that the government ensures national economy stability which held based on economy democracy under principles of solidarity, fair efficiency, sustainability, environmental friendliness, independence, and balancing national economy development and unity. He argued that the main purpose of economy regulation is to maintain economy stability, instead of authority division on economy implementation.

“The effort (of consumer protection, ed.) implemented by the Government is conducted by exercising consumer protection system regulated by law by determining authority between central, provincial, and city/regency government,” said Widodo.

As known, Sukabumi Consumer Dispute Settlement Agency (BPSK) staffs Suhaellah, Reni Setiawati, and Susi Marfia reviewed Act of Regional Governance (UU Pemda). They were objected with the elucidation number I letter DD number 5 Act No. 23/2014 which considered obscure and ambiguous.  

According to the Applicants, dispute settlement in BPSK has advantages compared to dispute settlement in courts.

They argued that the elucidation of Act of Regional Governance number I, letter DD, number 5 concerning “Implementation of Consumer Protection” interprets that budgeting authority of BPSK task implementation is authorized to provincial government.

Due to that, Sukabumi BPSK cannot serve Sukabumi residents because legal services provided by Sukabumi BPSK became stalled.  

They argued that such interpretation makes BPSK’s public service become unsustainable and hamper human rights enforcement. They argued that they cannot conduct tasks and authorities mandated by Article 52 Act on Consumer Protection and people’s right to justice becomes neglected. (Nano Tresna Arfana/lul/Prasetyo Adi N)

---