Snags in consumer protection law<\/p>\n
By Destivano Wibowo<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): The passing of Law No. 8\/1999 on Consumer
\nProtection, which will become effective on April 20, indicates
\nthe government's earnestness in protecting the rights of
\nconsumers to obtain and consume quality goods and\/or services.
\nThis law will provide consumers with convenience, health and
\nsecurity.<\/p>\n
The long-awaited law is expected to protect consumers of goods
\nand services produced and marketed by businesses in the country,
\nand goods and services imported from other countries and marketed
\ndomestically.<\/p>\n
The government, as the party most responsible for the
\nsupervision of consumer protection, will establish the
\nCoordinating Body for Consumer Protection (BPKN). This body will
\nsuggest and recommend to the government policies on consumer
\nprotection, conduct studies on relevant prevailing regulations
\nand examine goods and\/or services related to consumer safety.<\/p>\n
However, settling consumer disputes will fall under the
\nauthority of the Consumer Dispute Settlement Body (BPSK), which
\nwill be established in all regencies.<\/p>\n
The obvious problem is that we have yet to see the
\nestablishment of these two crucial bodies. If the government
\nwants the law on consumer protection to become effective on
\nschedule, it should at least indicate a timetable for the
\nnecessary preparations leading to this law taking effect.<\/p>\n
To settle possible disputes between consumers and business
\nagents, the law provides three alternatives:<\/p>\n
a. Peaceful settlement between a consumer and a business agent
\nwithout the intervention of a third party;<\/p>\n
b. Dispute settlement via the Consumer Dispute Settlement
\nBody;<\/p>\n
c. Settlement via the judiciary, namely the district courts.<\/p>\n
In terms of settling disputes peacefully, there needs to be an
\nagreement applicable to the concerned parties. In the event of a
\nbreach of the agreement, the impaired party could turn to the
\ncourts. A final settlement could then be expected to take a long
\ntime, because a party dissatisfied with the court's ruling could
\nfile an appeal.<\/p>\n
In the event of a dispute being brought directly to the BPSK,
\nthis body is required to issue a final and binding ruling within
\n21 days of receiving the dispute, meaning that there would be no
\nappeal. This is reasonable because disputes between consumers and
\nbusiness agents would be differentiated from other civil cases.<\/p>\n
However, for no clear reason Article 56 of the law stipulates
\nthat should a party object to a ruling by the BPSK, this party
\nmay file an objection with the district court. If it is still not
\nsatisfied, it may appeal to the Supreme Court -- so the BPSK's
\nruling would be neither final nor binding.<\/p>\n
Compare this provision with that of the Arbitration Law which
\nbasically states that the ruling of the arbitration committee
\nshall be binding and final, and that there shall be no further
\nlegal recourse.<\/p>\n
Another matter of no less importance is the provision on
\nstandard clauses in Article 18. These clauses are regulations or
\nprovisions and conditions in a document binding to consumers.<\/p>\n
A common example found in contracts between businesses and
\nconsumers is, \"Goods which have been purchased shall not be
\nexchanged or returned.\" When the law on consumer protection
\nbecomes effective, such clauses shall be deemed null and void.<\/p>\n
The question here is: What about the standard clauses which
\nexisted prior to the law; how much time do business agents have
\nto adjust their standard clauses? Article 18 says businesses are
\nrequired to adjust their agreements which contradict the law, but
\nthe adjustment period is not specified.<\/p>\n
This would certainly cause uneasiness to business agents who
\nin good faith make changes to their agreements, given the
\nsanctions for violating Article 18.<\/p>\n
Strict liability in consumer laws, such as is seen in the
\nUnited States, should also be applied and provided for. The
\nprinciple of strict liability suggests that business agents shall
\nbe directly responsible to consumers of their goods and services.<\/p>\n
The \"consumer\" is extended to not only include the purchaser
\nor user of the goods or services, but also other parties falling
\nvictim to defective goods and services.<\/p>\n
For instance, a motorist hits a pedestrian crossing the road
\ndue to the car's faulty brakes. Should the car brake producer, in
\naddition to the motorist, be held liable to compensate the
\npedestrian? The answer is yes, if strict liability is applied.<\/p>\n
And what about the settlement of disputes between consumers
\nand business agents involving small claims? The cost of
\nregistering such a case with the courts and the lawyer fees would
\nbe too high compared to a claim of only several hundred thousand
\nrupiah.<\/p>\n
Further, if such a dispute was brought to the BPSK, it would
\neventually be settled by the courts given the law's
\ninconsistency, as described above. It is thus necessary to seek a
\nsettlement which is inexpensive, fast, final, binding and direct
\nfor cases entailing relatively small amounts of compensation.<\/p>\n
Irrespective of the above weaknesses, business agents have a
\nmoral obligation to apply and comply with the law's provisions.
\nProducing quality goods and services would prevent frequent
\nconsumer claims.<\/p>\n
Consumers also need to be encouraged to exercise their rights
\nand control over businesses, as the success of this law depends
\non the function of checks and balances by consumers.<\/p>\n
The writer graduated from Boston University's School of Law
\nand works at Lubis Ganie Surowidjojo Law Office in Jakarta.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/snags-in-consumer-protection-law-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}