Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul reading out the Court’s considerations for the judicial review decision of the Consumer Protection Law, Wednesday (4/20/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Ilham & BPE.
Wednesday, April 20, 2022 | 15:29 WIB
JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) rejected the entire judicial review petition of Law No. 8 of 1999 on Consumer Protection, which was filed by Zico Leonard Djagardo Simanjuntak. “[The Court] adjudicated to reject the Petitioner’s petition in its entirety,” said plenary chair Chief Justice Anwar Usman at the ruling hearing for case No. 23/PUU-XX/2022 on Wednesday, April 20, 2022.
In the legal considerations read out by Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul, after the Court had carefully reviewed the petition, in which the Petitioner requested the addition of the norm “i. it determines and/or regulates efforts to resolve consumer disputes unilaterally without consumer consent and agreement” to Article 18 paragraph (1) of Law No. 8 of 1999. The Court was of the opinion that the petitum did not concern an interpretation of the norm, because the norms related to the settlement of consumer disputes are not contained in the basic norm of Article 18 paragraph (1) of the Consumer Protection Law. In the petitum, the Petitioner requested the Court to add a new norm even though the Court’s authority is interpreting norms in laws in order to uphold constitutional supremacy. Meanwhile, changes to norms as what the Petitioner requested are under the jurisdiction of the legislatures.
Therefore, although the object of the petition is a law, in casu Article 18 paragraph (1) of the Consumer Protection Law, whose judicial review falls under the Court’s jurisdiction, the Petitioner’s wish that the Court add a new norm in said article is legally unreasonable.
“Considering that based on all the aforementioned legal considerations, according to the Court, the Petitioners’ petition is legally unreasonable in its entirety,” said Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul reading out the Court’s opinion.
Also read: Bringing Grab Case Again, Zico Simanjuntak Challenges Consumer Protection Law
After carefully reviewing the Petitioner’s arguments, the Court considered that the issue the Petitioner brought was more of the implementation of the norm as a consumer of online transportation services who are bound by a standard agreement determined by the business owner (Grab Indonesia).
In consumer protection, there is a term “let the buyer beware,” the Court asserted, which means that the consumer/buyer is obliged to be careful in every transaction. In the context of choice of law and choice of forum, consumers can choose whether to submit to the settlement forum in a standard agreement or file a lawsuit in a court whose jurisdiction includes the defendant’s residence. Settlement of consumer disputes between parties based on standard agreements allows for voluntary selection of forums as regulated by Article 45 paragraph (2) of the Consumer Protection Law. Thus, the petition is contradictory to the a quo article. “Therefore, if the Court granted the Petitioner’s petition, it could create legal uncertainty,” Justice Manahan said.
Also read: Petitioner Asserts Consumer Protection Law Allows Businesspeople to Oppress Consumers
Zico Leonard Djagardo Simanjuntak, the Petitioner of case No. 23/PUU-XX/2022, argued factual constitutional impairment due to the enactment of Article 18 paragraph (1) of Law No. 8 of 1999 on Consumer Protection, which reads, “In offering the goods and/or services for trading, the entrepreneurs shall be prohibited from making or including a standard clause on each document and/or agreement if: a. it states the transfer of the entrepreneurs’ responsibility; b. it states that the entrepreneurs shall reserve the right to refuse to receive back the goods already purchased by the consumer; c. it states that the entrepreneurs shall reserve the right to refuse to refund for the goods and/or services already purchased by the consumer….”
In August 2019, the Petitioner joined a jugglenaut challenge organized by Grab Indonesia in which Grab users must use the GrabBike facility 74 times to be receive a reward of one million rupiahs. The Petitioner completed the challenge but he didn’t receive the reward. Then, on August 10, 2019, Grab Indonesia changed the challenge’s terms and conditions, which the Petitioner believes to be a violation of Article 18 paragraph (1) of Law No. 8 of 1999. He then filed a lawsuit to the Central Jakarta District Court, arguing that the mobile transportation company had changed the challenge’s terms and conditions unilaterally. Only after that did the company give the Petitioner the award in question.
Therefore, in the petitum, the Petitioner requested that the Court declare Article 18 paragraph (1) of the Consumer Protection Law unconstitutional if not interpreted to include “it determines and/or regulates efforts to resolve consumer disputes unilaterally without consumer consent and agreement.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTbCPEdQlGU
Writer : Nano Tresna A.
Editor : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR : Raisa Ayudhita
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Translation uploaded on 4/21/2022 17:08 WIB
Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian versions, the Indonesian version will prevail.
Wednesday, April 20, 2022 | 15:29 WIB 163