Chief Justice Suhartoyo chairing the ruling hearing for the material judicial review on the provisions on the term of office of leaders of the National Consumer Protection Agency, Friday (1/3/2025). Photo by MKRI.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — Private employees’ concerns remain relevant to report to the National Consumer Protection Agency (BPKN), but the Petitioners have not taken any concrete steps to file a complaint regarding the losses they have experienced. It means that the loss of constitutional rights they experienced is deemed speculative because it has not happened. The replacement of BPKN leadership whose term of office has ended does not necessarily mean that the examination of complaints would be halted.

This is the legal consideration for Decision No. 162/PUU-XXII/2024, read out by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra on Friday, January 3, 2025 in the plenary courtroom. Four private employees tested Article 35 paragraph (3) of Law Number 8 of 1999 concerning Consumer Protection (Consumer Protection Law).

Justice Saldi further said that the Petitioners’ elaboration of constitutional loss had not convinced the Court of any causality between the implementation of the a quo norm and the potential loss of their constitutional rights. Thus, the Petitioners did not have the legal standing to file the petition, which led the Court to refrain from considering the subject matter of the petition. “[The Court] declares that petitums by Petitioners I through V inadmissible,” said Chief Justice Suhartoyo delivering the verdict.

Also read:

Terms of Office of Head of National Consumer Protection Agency Questioned

Private Employees Reiterate Concern over Head of BPKN’s Term of Office

The Petitioner argued that Article 35 paragraph (3) of the Consumer Protection Law is contrary to Article 28D paragraph (1) and Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. They had observed that there were 12 commissions or non-ministerial state agencies aside from the National Consumer Protection Agency (BPKN)—such as the Judicial Commission, the Human Rights Commission, and the Ombudsman—with a five-year term of office.

At the preliminary hearing on Thursday, November 28, the Petitioners argued that Article 35 paragraph (3) of the Consumer Protection Law was against Article 28D paragraph (1) and Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. They observed that there are 12 commissions or non-ministerial state agencies aside from the National Consumer Protection Agency (BPKN)—such as the Judicial Commission, the Human Rights Commission, and the Ombudsman—with a five-year term of office. Meanwhile, Article 35 paragraph (3) of the Consumer Protection Law reads, “The chairman, vice chairman, and members of the National Consumer Protection Agency shall hold office for 3 (three) years and may be reappointed for one more term.”

Specifically and actually, the article’s enforcement has caused the Petitioners, who both own an apartment unit and are looking for alternative solutions to problems through the BPKN, to worry that they would not get a guarantee of legal protection and fair legal certainty. They argued that the BPKN members’ short terms of office had led to inadequate performance, duties, functions, and/or responsibilities. For this reason, they requested that the Court declare Article 35 paragraph (3) of the Consumer Protection Law conditionally unconstitutional and not legally binding if not be interpreted as, “The chairman, vice chairman, and members of the National Consumer Protection Agency shall hold office for 5 (five) years and may be reappointed for one more term.”

Author         : Sri Pujianti
Editor          : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR               : Fauzan Febriyan
Translator     : Syifa Amelia/Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

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.

---