The Petitioner\'s Legal Counsel Eep Ependi reading out the principal points of revision of his petition in a material review hearing of Law on Consumer Protection, Tuesday (28/11) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo Humas MK/Ifa.

The Constitutional Court (MK) held a second hearing of the judicial review of Article 4 letter b of Law No. 8/1999 on Consumer Protection, Tuesday (28/11). The hearing of Case Number 91/PUU-XV/2017 was to hear the petition revision.

The Petitioner\'s Legal Counsel Eep Ependi explained two points of revision. First, related to legal standing. The Petitioner as an individual Indonesian citizen considers that his constitutional rights have been impaired by the enactment of the provisions of Article 4 letter b of the Consumer Protection Law, which states that consumers rights is 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.

"Then, the government since October 31, 2017 has imposed mandatory way of paying toll fees using electronic money, and no longer received paper money and/or coins," he explained in the session led by Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo.

The use of electronic money, continued Eep, as the only way to use toll roads, has restricted the Petitioner from getting fair treatment and freedom from discriminatory treatment as consumers. Related to the petition, his side changed the point of reference in the 1945 Constitution, to Article 28D paragraph (1) and Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution.

Eep also explained that Article 3 letters c and d of the Consumer Protection Law was established in order to increase consumer empowerment in choosing, determining, and demanding their rights as consumers, and to create consumer protection system containing the element of legal certainty. Transactions for purposes of payments and other financial transactions shall not be limited to the use of money whose value is stored electronically on a card medium. However, Eep continued, it should also allow the use of paper money or coins directly or other media that have or store a certain value of money.

"The absence of a way to pay prior to or after using a paid or toll road with money in paper, or metal which is a medium that has or has a certain amount of money has removed the Petitioner\'s right to fair treatment in the use of paper money or coins. And there has been discrimination in only receiving electronic money that actually has a similar function as paper money or coins," he said.

In the previous hearing, the mandatory use of e-toll was felt burdensome, encouraging Muhammad Hafidz, a citizen, to file a review 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. Article 4 of the Consumer Protection Law reads, "The rights of consumers shall be: 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 their own way of payment for the goods and/or services they offers. (ARS/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)