Petitioners for judicial review of Law No. 8 of 1999 on Consumer Protection delivering revised petitions on Wednesday (12/17/2025). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

A number of BPKN members who are challenging the regulations regarding the term of office of BPKN leaders and the authority of BPKN in supervising the implementation of consumer protection have revised the petition.

JAKARTA (MKRI) – The Constitutional Court (MK) held another material judicial review hearing of Law No. 8 of 1999 on Consumer Protection (Consumer Protection Law) against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, on Wednesday, December 17, 2025. The hearing with the agenda of revising the petition combined two cases, namely Petition No. 234/PUU-XXIII/2025 filed by N.G.N. Renti Maharani Kerti along with 15 other Petitioners and Petition No. 235/PUU-XXIII/2025 filed by M. Mufti Mubarok along with 11 Petitioners. The hearing was chaired by Chief Justice Suhartoyo, by Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh and Constitutional Justice M. Guntur Hamzah.

In Petition No. 234/PUU-XXIII/2025, the petitioners challenged the constitutionality of Article 35 paragraph (3) of the Consumer Protection Law, which stipulates that the term of office of the chairperson, deputy chairperson, and members of the National Consumer Protection Agency (BPKN) is three years, with the possibility of reappointment for one further term.

In this hearing, the petitioners' legal counsel, Novriansyah, stated that the petition had been revised in accordance with the advice of the Panel of Justices. He explained that the revisions were made by clarifying the constitutional impairments and legal standing of the petitioners, which are directly linked to the norm being challenged. "Furthermore, there are no substantial changes, including to the petition, which remains unchanged," he said.

Meanwhile, in Petition No. 235/PUU-XXIII/2025, Fitrah Bukhari, the Petitioner's legal counsel, stated that his office had also revised the petition. According to him, the revisions were made following up on input from the Panel of Justices, including the accumulation of unresolved consumer complaints from the fifth to the sixth BPKN period. "We have included data on the number of complaints that must be resolved during this period," Fitrah said.

Also read:

Several BPKN Members Challenge the Constitutionality of BPKN's Term of Office and Supervisory Authority

For information, the Petitioners are members of BPKN and believe that their constitutional rights are guaranteed by the 1945 Constitution, particularly Article 28D paragraph (1) concerning the right to recognition, guarantee, protection and fair legal certainty as well as equal treatment before the law.

In Petition 234/PUU-XXIII/2025, the Petitioners argue that structural discrimination exists due to the three-year term of office for BPKN members, while other independent state institutions such as the Corruption Eradication Commission, the Indonesian Ombudsman, the National Human Rights Commission, and the Financial Services Authority have five-year terms. This difference is considered irrational and has negative impacts both institutionally and on the career security of BPKN members.

According to the Petitioner, a short term of office has the potential to disrupt program continuity, eliminate institutional memory, and cause organizational instability. This condition is considered to reduce the effectiveness of consumer protection nationally. In the provisional petition, the Petitioner asks the Court to determine this case as a priority for examination and order the postponement of the entire selection process for BPKN members until the decision is read. Meanwhile, in the main petition, the Petitioner asks the Court to declare Article 35 paragraph (3) of the Consumer Protection Law contrary to the 1945 Constitution and interpret the term of office of BPKN members to be five years and can be extended for one further term.

Meanwhile, in Petition No. 235/PUU-XXIII/2025, the Petitioners challenge a number of articles, including Article 30 paragraph (1), Article 31, Article 34 paragraph (1), and Article 39 paragraph (2) of the Consumer Protection Law. The Petitioners believe that these provisions do not provide clear supervisory authority to the BPKN, thus placing the BPKN as if it were on par with a non-governmental consumer protection agency. The Petitioners argue that this condition creates authority confusion because the BPKN does not have assertive supervision. As a result, the strategic supervisory function cannot be carried out effectively and has the potential to violate the principles of the rule of law as stipulated in Article 1 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution.

The Petitioners also believe that these provisions create legal uncertainty, overlapping authority, and weaken the effectiveness of consumer protection. Therefore, they request that the Court conditionally reinterpret several provisions of the Consumer Protection Law to align them with the 1945 Constitution and to affirm the BPKN's position as an independent institution with supervisory authority, a clear institutional structure, and guaranteed organizational and budgetary independence.(*)

Track case No. 234/PUU-XXIII/2025 and 235/PUU-XXIII/2025

Author      : Utami Argawati
Editor       : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR           : Fauzan Febriyan
Translator : Donny Yuniarto

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.

---