Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
2026 Hak Cipta Milik Hukumonline.com
Produk Pilihan
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami Marcell Sihombing, Agus Sahbani
The Constitutional Court (MK) is continuing to question the applicants' witnesses with regard to the filed judicial-review petition designated as Case No. 65/PUU-XIII/2015. These witnesses have emphasized that there is often a severe lack of detailed information regarding the names and domiciles pertaining to licensed businesses, as well as to many of the goods and services that they sell in the marketplace.
“If one has the intention of filing a complaint regarding a given product, you are likely to find no information regarding the company's domicile to which you can address the matter, and product packaging often only states the name of the company's city or region,” explained Beny Batara Tumpang Hutabarat, one of the applicants’ witnesses.
Mr. Hutabarat stated that he is accustomed to reading the nutritional composition, expiration date, and what city/region a given product originates from when purchasing an item. The main issue pertaining to the purchase of food and drink that he normally comes across is that of the inconsistency often found between ingredients printed on packaging and the actual composition of the product in question.
As an example, Mr. Hutabarat once purchased a packet of catfish floss (abon ikan patin), which claimed to contain both DHA and OMG3, a claim that he later proved to be incorrect. Moreover, the product also claimed to be free of preservatives and artificial colorings or sweeteners, and this too turned out to be false.
“Also, in the hospital-service sector, information regarding a given foundation or company address is often left unspecified,” concluded Mr. Hutabarat.
Another of the applicants' witnesses, Dedi Firdaus Yulianto, outlined the difficulties involved in filing a trademark claim with the Commercial Court without easy access to a company’s address. Currently, the process of requesting an address from the Directorate General of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) at the Ministry of Law and Human Rights requires at least two months and the payment of a considerable amount of money.
“Of course though, one can simply try and find the respective address on one's own, however this can be difficult” explained Mr. Yulianto.
Aside from trademark-related matters, Mr. Yulianto also stressed that documents and letters relating to company registrations (tanda daftar perusahaan) were currently available from Trade Agencies located in Local Government Offices, but that actually getting hold of them often involved a long and arduous process.
Mr. Yulianto also said that obtaining such information usually required the payment of a fee, and that his position as a corporate lawyer representing a company in a legal dispute often lead to complications during this process. Indeed, on several occasions, Mr. Yulianto discovered that the company information that he eventually obtained was no longer valid, as the company had already relocated elsewhere.
The above witnesses were presented by Samuel Bonaparte, Ridha Sjartina, and Satrio Laskoro and were debating the constitutional application of Articles 4 (c) and 7 (a) of Law No. 8 of 1999 on Consumer Protection (Consumer Protection Law).
The Consumer Protection Law does not currently oblige producers to provide a valid company name and domicile with their products. As a result of this omission, the applicants have deemed that the Articles in the CPL, particularly the above-mentioned Articles, violate their consumer right to complete and correct information pertaining to valid company name and domicile (particularly hospitals in this case) in relation to purchased goods and/or services by customers.
The applicants brought the current judicial review before the CK as a result of having cases rejected on the basis of error in persona as they attempted to prove consumer-rights violations regarding both hospital malpractice and the invalid listed domicile of a property developer.
(hot/ja/sp)
Marcell Sihombing, Agus Sahbani
The Constitutional Court (MK) is continuing to question the applicants' witnesses with regard to the filed judicial-review petition designated as Case No. 65/PUU-XIII/2015. These witnesses have emphasized that there is often a severe lack of detailed information regarding the names and domiciles pertaining to licensed businesses, as well as to many of the goods and services that they sell in the marketplace.
“If one has the intention of filing a complaint regarding a given product, you are likely to find no information regarding the company's domicile to which you can address the matter, and product packaging often only states the name of the company's city or region,” explained Beny Batara Tumpang Hutabarat, one of the applicants’ witnesses.
Mr. Hutabarat stated that he is accustomed to reading the nutritional composition, expiration date, and what city/region a given product originates from when purchasing an item. The main issue pertaining to the purchase of food and drink that he normally comes across is that of the inconsistency often found between ingredients printed on packaging and the actual composition of the product in question.
As an example, Mr. Hutabarat once purchased a packet of catfish floss (abon ikan patin), which claimed to contain both DHA and OMG3, a claim that he later proved to be incorrect. Moreover, the product also claimed to be free of preservatives and artificial colorings or sweeteners, and this too turned out to be false.
“Also, in the hospital-service sector, information regarding a given foundation or company address is often left unspecified,” concluded Mr. Hutabarat.
Another of the applicants' witnesses, Dedi Firdaus Yulianto, outlined the difficulties involved in filing a trademark claim with the Commercial Court without easy access to a company’s address. Currently, the process of requesting an address from the Directorate General of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) at the Ministry of Law and Human Rights requires at least two months and the payment of a considerable amount of money.
“Of course though, one can simply try and find the respective address on one's own, however this can be difficult” explained Mr. Yulianto.
Aside from trademark-related matters, Mr. Yulianto also stressed that documents and letters relating to company registrations (tanda daftar perusahaan) were currently available from Trade Agencies located in Local Government Offices, but that actually getting hold of them often involved a long and arduous process.
Mr. Yulianto also said that obtaining such information usually required the payment of a fee, and that his position as a corporate lawyer representing a company in a legal dispute often lead to complications during this process. Indeed, on several occasions, Mr. Yulianto discovered that the company information that he eventually obtained was no longer valid, as the company had already relocated elsewhere.
The above witnesses were presented by Samuel Bonaparte, Ridha Sjartina, and Satrio Laskoro and were debating the constitutional application of Articles 4 (c) and 7 (a) of Law No. 8 of 1999 on Consumer Protection (Consumer Protection Law).
The Consumer Protection Law does not currently oblige producers to provide a valid company name and domicile with their products. As a result of this omission, the applicants have deemed that the Articles in the CPL, particularly the above-mentioned Articles, violate their consumer right to complete and correct information pertaining to valid company name and domicile (particularly hospitals in this case) in relation to purchased goods and/or services by customers.
The applicants brought the current judicial review before the CK as a result of having cases rejected on the basis of error in persona as they attempted to prove consumer-rights violations regarding both hospital malpractice and the invalid listed domicile of a property developer.
(hot/ja/sp)