Plenary session to hear experts for the Petitioners in the judicial review hearing of the Fiduciary Law, Wednesday (24/4) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The inclusion of the standard clause by business actors in trade agreements is one of the causes of increasing leasing problems in society. In fact, the standard clause has been banned in Article 18 of Law Number 8 of 1999 on Consumer Protection because it harms consumers. This was revealed by the Chairperson of the Daily Executive Board of the Indonesian Consumers Foundation (YLKI) Tulus Abadi, who was presented by the Petitioners in a follow-up judicial review hearing of Law Number 42 of 1999 on Fiducia Security held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Wednesday (424/4/2019).

Tulus revealed that many business actors insert a standard clause in a standard agreement, starting from transfer of responsibility, or the business actor’s right to refuse the return of goods, and so on. "And it states that consumers are subject to the regulations set out later, which often confuse consumers when interacting with the services sector. One of them is leasing services," he said. 

Tulus said the standard clause YLKI often found in consumer complaints tends to benefit business actors. Consumers are aggrieved. Anticipating such deception by business actors, YLKI has made an effort to discuss with OJK and Bank Indonesia so that a standard trade agreement is made. In addition, YLKI encourages changes in regulations regarding the inclusion of this standard clause. 

"The substance (of the standard clause in the trade agreement) is very difficult for consumers to understand because it is too detailed, technical, whose content consumers do not understand, the form and writing are so small and complex that we have proposed a discussion with the OJK and BI that there has to be a standard agreement standardized by regulators, for example by the OJK. So, in the context of banking or insurance, a standard agreement must be made with the same character so that it does not harm consumers by including articles on standard clauses," he explained. 

In their petition, Petitioners Aprilliani Dewi and Suri Agung Prabowo argued that Article 15 paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of the Fiduciary Law contradict Article 27 paragraph (1), Article 28D paragraph (1), and Article 28H paragraph (4)  of the 1945 Constitution. The Petitioners had previously argued that their car, a Toyota Alphard V Model 2.4 A/T 2004, had been seized by PT Astra Sedaya Finance (PT ASF). They had made a Multipurpose Financing Agreement to finance the purchase of the luxury car. In accordance with the agreement, he was required to pay the loan to PT ASF for Rp222,696,000 in 35-month installments starting November 18, 2016. In November 18, 2016 - July 18, 2017 the Petitioner had finished paying the installments. However, on November 10, 2017, PT ASF sent a representative to seize the car on the grounds of default. The Petitioner subsequently filed a letter of complaint regarding the seizure by PT ASF representative. However, it was not responded, until he received more mistreatments.

In response to the mistreatments, the Petitioner took a legal action by filing a civil suit to the South Jakarta District Court on April 24, 2018 in case No. 345/PDT.G/2018/PN.jkt.Sel. The court granted the Petitioner\'s claim by stating that PT ASF had committed an illegal act. However, on January 11, 2018, PT ASF once again seized the Petitioner\'s car in the presence of the police. The Petitioner considered that PT ASF had taken refuge behind the article reviewed in the a quo case even though, Suri Agung added, the decision of the South Jakarta District Court is higher than the a quo law. Thus, the Petitioner argued that there was no legal juridical reason for PT ASF to seize his car by face, including on the basis of the a quo article.

Before concluding the session, Justice Anwar said the next session would be held on Monday, May 13, 2019 at 12:30 WIB to hear the statement of the House of Representatives, expert for the Constitutional Court, and experts for the Government. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)