Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
2026 Hak Cipta Milik Hukumonline.com
Produk Pilihan
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami Marcell Sihombing, Agus Sahbani
The Constitutional Court (MK) held the first proceeding last Tuesday, on case No.65/PUU-XIII/2015 reviewing Law No. 8 of 1999 on Consumer Protection (Consumer Protection Law). The judicial review was submitted by Samuel Bonaparte, Ridha Sjartina, and Satrio Laskoro, who argued the constitutional application of Articles 4 (c) and7 (a) of the Consumer Protection Law.It should be noted that Article 4 (c) stipulates consumer’s rights for acquiring honest, clear, and accurate information regarding the condition and guarantee of goods/services. While, Article 7 (a) stipulates businesses obligations to have good intention when carrying out their activities.
The applicants requested MK to declare Article 4 (c) to be in violation with the 1945 Constitution if the Elucidation does not provide detailed explanation. While on Article 7 (a), the applicants asked MK to declare it “conditionally constitutional”, making it to be interpreted as “businesses having to publish their names and domiciles”, particularly relevant companies responsible for the production and the render of goods/services.
One of the petitioners Mr. Bonaparte argued that Article 4 (c) does not further explain consumer’s rights on acquiring complete and accurate information about businesses’ name and domicile. He also pointed out that Article 7 (a) does not mandate businesses on such obligation. Mr. Bonaparte and other applicants believe that business’ name and domicile are very crucial and necessary information, especially when a dispute or lawsuit ends up in court.
Not knowing a particular business name and domicile on cases such as traveling by airplane, treated in a hospital, or merely drinking coffee at Starbucks, will become a challenge especially when consumers are injured . They would have trouble in filing a lawsuit, for reasons that they wouldn’t know who to blame, as further explained by Mr. Bonaparte.
Mrs. Sjartina, also an applicant, added that Mr. Bonaparte tried to use his rights as a consumer when filing a lawsuit against a hospital for malpractice. Mr. Bonaparte lawsuit turns out to be unfruitful, as the court rejected his suit on error in persona ground. Mrs. Sjatrina underlined that filing lawsuits without sufficient information would only result in the case being rejected due to unsubstantial grounds such as error in persona and/or error in the suit.
There was also another situation where Mr. Bonaparte purchased a house from a property developer and ended up in a dispute. Due to the developer's brochure informing that their domicile was Depok - West Java, he then filled the lawsuit with the Depok District Court. The property developer however, was no longer using the same name, and was located in Central Jakarta. The Depok District Court ended up rejecting the case on an error in persona basis—similar to the first case.
Responding to the petition, Justice Patrialis Akbar asserted that the constitutional -loss weighed more to Mr. Bonaparte. However, he admitted that this problem could happen to any consumer, including other applicants as potential victims. Mr. Akbar then asked other applicants to elaborate their constitutional losses in detail.
(hot/ja)
Marcell Sihombing, Agus Sahbani
The Constitutional Court (MK) held the first proceeding last Tuesday, on case No.65/PUU-XIII/2015 reviewing Law No. 8 of 1999 on Consumer Protection (Consumer Protection Law). The judicial review was submitted by Samuel Bonaparte, Ridha Sjartina, and Satrio Laskoro, who argued the constitutional application of Articles 4 (c) and7 (a) of the Consumer Protection Law.It should be noted that Article 4 (c) stipulates consumer’s rights for acquiring honest, clear, and accurate information regarding the condition and guarantee of goods/services. While, Article 7 (a) stipulates businesses obligations to have good intention when carrying out their activities.
The applicants requested MK to declare Article 4 (c) to be in violation with the 1945 Constitution if the Elucidation does not provide detailed explanation. While on Article 7 (a), the applicants asked MK to declare it “conditionally constitutional”, making it to be interpreted as “businesses having to publish their names and domiciles”, particularly relevant companies responsible for the production and the render of goods/services.
One of the petitioners Mr. Bonaparte argued that Article 4 (c) does not further explain consumer’s rights on acquiring complete and accurate information about businesses’ name and domicile. He also pointed out that Article 7 (a) does not mandate businesses on such obligation. Mr. Bonaparte and other applicants believe that business’ name and domicile are very crucial and necessary information, especially when a dispute or lawsuit ends up in court.
Not knowing a particular business name and domicile on cases such as traveling by airplane, treated in a hospital, or merely drinking coffee at Starbucks, will become a challenge especially when consumers are injured . They would have trouble in filing a lawsuit, for reasons that they wouldn’t know who to blame, as further explained by Mr. Bonaparte.
Mrs. Sjartina, also an applicant, added that Mr. Bonaparte tried to use his rights as a consumer when filing a lawsuit against a hospital for malpractice. Mr. Bonaparte lawsuit turns out to be unfruitful, as the court rejected his suit on error in persona ground. Mrs. Sjatrina underlined that filing lawsuits without sufficient information would only result in the case being rejected due to unsubstantial grounds such as error in persona and/or error in the suit.
There was also another situation where Mr. Bonaparte purchased a house from a property developer and ended up in a dispute. Due to the developer's brochure informing that their domicile was Depok - West Java, he then filled the lawsuit with the Depok District Court. The property developer however, was no longer using the same name, and was located in Central Jakarta. The Depok District Court ended up rejecting the case on an error in persona basis—similar to the first case.
Responding to the petition, Justice Patrialis Akbar asserted that the constitutional -loss weighed more to Mr. Bonaparte. However, he admitted that this problem could happen to any consumer, including other applicants as potential victims. Mr. Akbar then asked other applicants to elaborate their constitutional losses in detail.
(hot/ja)