---

Eep Ependi and Muhammad Hafidz (left to right) after attending the preliminary hearing of the judicial review of the Law on Consumer Protection, on Wednesday (15/11) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

The mandatory use of e-toll is deemed burdensome enough that a citizen submitted a judicial review of Law No. 8/1999 on Consumer Protection (Consumer Protection Law) on Wednesday (15/11). Muhammad Hafidz, registered as Petitioner of Case No. 91/PUU-XV/2017, reviews Article 4 of the Consumer Protection Law.

The Petitioner argues that his constitutional rights are violated by the enactment of Article 4 of the Consumer Protection Law, which reads, "The rights of consumers shall be: b. the right to choose goods and/or services and obtain said goods and/or services in accordance with the exchange value and condition and guarantee pledged.” 

In the petition, the Petitioner argues that the provision only regulates the right to choose and obtain goods and/or services, without the right to choose how to make payments for said goods and/or services to be owned and/or used, has not provided ease and special treatment for obtaining equal opportunities and benefits to achieve equality and justice for the Petitioner. According to the Petitioner, the absence of the right may result in the business actors being able to arbitrarily determine his/her own way of payment for the goods and/or services he/she offers. The Petitioner has experienced such inconvenience due to mandatory electronic payment (e-toll/e-money), which refuses cash payment using banknotes or coins from consumers as a legal currency as referred to in Law No. 7/2011 on Currency.

"This act of the business actor not providing options for the consumer to obtain ease of choosing how to pay the goods and/or services to be used and/or used is a monopoly of business, since the consumers have no alternative to make payment other than those which are determined unilaterally," said Eep Ependi as attorney of the Petitioner.

Therefore, the Petitioner requests that Article 4 of the Consumer Protection Law not have a legal binding force as long as it is understood to be negating the consumer\'s right to choose how to make payment for goods and/or services that are to be owned and/or used.

Justices’ Advice

Responding to the request, the panel of justices led by Constitutional Justice Maria Farida Indrati accompanied by Constitutional Justices I Dewa Gede Palguna and Manahan M.P. Sitompul provided suggestions for improvement. According to Justice Maria, the Petitioner must declare the impairment of his constitutional rights as the result of Article 4 of the Consumer Protection Law. According to Justice Maria, the constitutional rights of the Petitioner are not violated by the right to choose. If the Petitioner does not want to use e-toll, she continued, then there is the option of using a regular road.

"The legal standing must be clarified first. [In terms of] the right of consumers to choose goods and services, does [this article] harm the constitutional rights of the Petitioner? Because the law specifies it as the right to choose, and toll road is an alternative. E-money is more convenient than cash. You have been granted the right to choose. So this (request) is rather out of place,” she stated.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna requested that the Petitioner revise the petitioner related to the law being reviewed. According to Justice Palguna, the Petitioner should have questioned the policy of Bank Indonesia in requiring the use of e-toll, rather than reviewing Article 4 of the Consumer Protection Law. He said the problem experienced by the Petitioner arose not because of the constitutionality of the norm. Justice Palguna also mentioned that there was no discrimination suffered by the Petitioner regarding the obligation to use e-toll.

"Also, will the argument of discrimination be used? The context of actual discrimination, both in the Human Rights Act and the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is not what you mean in this petition. Not every distinction means discrimination," he said. (Lulu Anjarsari/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---