Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
2026 Hak Cipta Milik Hukumonline.com
Produk Pilihan
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami Nadia Maharani, Agus Sahbani
Following an initial judicial review of Articles 4 (c) and 7 (a) of Law No. 8 of 1999 on Consumer Protection (Consumer Protection Law), the Constitutional Court is moving to the next stage of the review and trial process by summoning the government to ask for clarification.
The currently submitted judicial review application requests that businesses be obliged to provide their current official company name as well as their current company domicile, a stipulation deemed particularly relevant to businesses responsible for the production and rendering of goods and services.
In response to the Constitutional Court’s summons, the government has made clear that the articles under review only regulate information regarding the condition of goods and services, and do not mandate that businesses be required to provide their company’s domicile.
“It would be inappropriate to demand the domicile of a company, as the mandated information only relates to the condition of goods and services,” explained Widodo, Director General of Standardization and Consumer Protection at the Ministry of Trade, who was representing the government at the Constitutional Court in Jakarta on Monday.
Mr. Widodo further elucidated that matters pertaining to a given company’s name and domicile are already stipulated under Article 8 (1) letter i of the Consumer Protection Law. This provision prohibits businesses from producing and distributing goods without clear labeling which states the address of the business in question.
“The current request is not a constitutional matter relating to applicable norms, but pertains to the implementation of these norms. This is why the two articles do not contradict the 1945 Constitution,” Widodo added.
Furthermore, the Director General asserted that his party has implemented an online surveillance system relating to goods and services which deals with issues of loss and damage suffered by consumers, as well with business domicile addresses .
“We have prepared a method of complaint for consumers who have suffered losses,” explained Mr. Widodo.
The Head of the Supreme Court, Arief Hidayat, stated that at the recent hearing, the petitioner requested to be allowed to bring in two experts and five witnesses at the next trial, which is scheduled to be held on August 10th.
The judicial review itself got underway when Samuel Bonaparte, Ridha Sjartina and Satrio Laskoro challenged Articles 4 (c) and 7 (a) of the Consumer Protection Law at the Constitutional Court last June.
One of these petitioners, Mr. Bonaparte, argued that Article 4 (c) did not adequately explain consumer rights with regard to being able to acquire complete and accurate information about businesses’ names and domiciles. He also pointed out that Article 7 (a) did not mandate that businesses are thus obligated to provide such information. Mr. Bonaparte and his fellow applicants are convinced that a business’s name and domicile are important and necessary information for consumers to be in possession of, especially when disputes or lawsuits ends up before the courts.
Not having knowledge of a particular business’s name and domicile in cases involving air travel, hospital treatment or simply just drinking coffee at Starbucks, can negatively impact consumers, especially where injuries have been sustained. Consumers will have trouble filing lawsuits, as they won’t know where to apportion blame, Mr. Bonaparte added.
Mrs. Sjartina, also an applicant, added that Mr. Bonaparte had previously attempted to apply his rights as a consumer when filing a lawsuit against a hospital for malpractice. Mr. Bonaparte’s lawsuit ultimately turned out to be unsuccessful, as the court rejected his suit on error in persona grounds. Mrs. Sjatrina emphasized that attempting to file lawsuits without being in possession of sufficient information would only result in a given case being rejected on grounds such as error in persona and/or other errors or omissions in the suit.
(hot/ja/sp)
Nadia Maharani, Agus Sahbani
Following an initial judicial review of Articles 4 (c) and 7 (a) of Law No. 8 of 1999 on Consumer Protection (Consumer Protection Law), the Constitutional Court is moving to the next stage of the review and trial process by summoning the government to ask for clarification.
The currently submitted judicial review application requests that businesses be obliged to provide their current official company name as well as their current company domicile, a stipulation deemed particularly relevant to businesses responsible for the production and rendering of goods and services.
In response to the Constitutional Court’s summons, the government has made clear that the articles under review only regulate information regarding the condition of goods and services, and do not mandate that businesses be required to provide their company’s domicile.
“It would be inappropriate to demand the domicile of a company, as the mandated information only relates to the condition of goods and services,” explained Widodo, Director General of Standardization and Consumer Protection at the Ministry of Trade, who was representing the government at the Constitutional Court in Jakarta on Monday.
Mr. Widodo further elucidated that matters pertaining to a given company’s name and domicile are already stipulated under Article 8 (1) letter i of the Consumer Protection Law. This provision prohibits businesses from producing and distributing goods without clear labeling which states the address of the business in question.
“The current request is not a constitutional matter relating to applicable norms, but pertains to the implementation of these norms. This is why the two articles do not contradict the 1945 Constitution,” Widodo added.
Furthermore, the Director General asserted that his party has implemented an online surveillance system relating to goods and services which deals with issues of loss and damage suffered by consumers, as well with business domicile addresses .
“We have prepared a method of complaint for consumers who have suffered losses,” explained Mr. Widodo.
The Head of the Supreme Court, Arief Hidayat, stated that at the recent hearing, the petitioner requested to be allowed to bring in two experts and five witnesses at the next trial, which is scheduled to be held on August 10th.
The judicial review itself got underway when Samuel Bonaparte, Ridha Sjartina and Satrio Laskoro challenged Articles 4 (c) and 7 (a) of the Consumer Protection Law at the Constitutional Court last June.
One of these petitioners, Mr. Bonaparte, argued that Article 4 (c) did not adequately explain consumer rights with regard to being able to acquire complete and accurate information about businesses’ names and domiciles. He also pointed out that Article 7 (a) did not mandate that businesses are thus obligated to provide such information. Mr. Bonaparte and his fellow applicants are convinced that a business’s name and domicile are important and necessary information for consumers to be in possession of, especially when disputes or lawsuits ends up before the courts.
Not having knowledge of a particular business’s name and domicile in cases involving air travel, hospital treatment or simply just drinking coffee at Starbucks, can negatively impact consumers, especially where injuries have been sustained. Consumers will have trouble filing lawsuits, as they won’t know where to apportion blame, Mr. Bonaparte added.
Mrs. Sjartina, also an applicant, added that Mr. Bonaparte had previously attempted to apply his rights as a consumer when filing a lawsuit against a hospital for malpractice. Mr. Bonaparte’s lawsuit ultimately turned out to be unsuccessful, as the court rejected his suit on error in persona grounds. Mrs. Sjatrina emphasized that attempting to file lawsuits without being in possession of sufficient information would only result in a given case being rejected on grounds such as error in persona and/or other errors or omissions in the suit.
(hot/ja/sp)