Latest News
Challenges and Solutions in Consumer Dispute Resolution in Indonesia: The Role of BPSK and Legal Reforms
Challenges and Solutions in Consumer Dispute Resolution in Indonesia: The Role of BPSK and Legal Reforms
In Indonesia, resolving consumer disputes through litigation and non-litigation methods is a complicated procedure. Alternative dispute resolution procedures including conciliation, mediation, and arbitration are handled by the Consumer Dispute Resolution Agency (BPSK). However, there are several barriers to BPSK's existence, such as inconsistent rules, restricted public awareness of consumer rights, and low access to BPSK. Lawsuit efficacy requires changes to its legal substance, structure, and culture. Legal laws should guarantee equity in the supply of BPSK offices and avoid overlap with judicial organizations. They should also give legal clarity. Furthermore, there should be greater knowledge throughout the community regarding the significance of consumer awareness in safeguarding their rights. Law No. 8/1999, generally referred to as the Consumer Protection Law, outlines the specific protections for consumers that are necessary due to Indonesia's leading economy and worldwide market. All facets of law, including criminal, civil, and constitutional facets, are covered by this statute.
In Indonesia, there are two ways to address consumer complaints: non-litigation via the non-litigation technique, and litigation using the legal system. Contrary to the goal of the GCPL, consumers are not sufficiently protected by the conflict between the Consumer Protection Law and the Civil Procedure Law. The UUPK is a comprehensive legislation that governs the relationship between consumers and businesses. Its goals are to guarantee legal clarity, promote equality, and foster positive results. Strategies to overcome these issues and guarantee a fair and efficient resolution of customer disputes must be put into place if BPSK is to become more effective in resolving customer disputes. According to Article 1 point 11 of Law Number 8 Year 1999 (Consumer Protection Law), the Consumer Dispute Resolution Body (BPSK) is in charge of handling and resolving complaints between business actors and their clients. With the help of a clerk, it creates a committee with at least three members and an odd number of members. In line with the provincial working area, which includes customers, business players, and government agencies, the governor also took the initiative to develop BPSK.
The law about consumer protection, Law No. 8/1999, explains the jurisdiction of BPSK in Article 52. According to the article, BPSK may use mediation, arbitration, consolidation, or arbitration; once the parties agree on a course of action, they must follow it. If companies and consumers agree to employ one of the three consumer dispute resolution procedures recommended by BPSK, the panel's job is to resolve the issue. Consolidation assists in resolving consumer issues outside of the legal system, whereas mediation entails the involvement of an impartial third person chosen at the mutual discretion of the parties. In addition to providing a forum for discussion and submission of responses to laws and regulations about consumer protection, the panel's duties also include calling witnesses, expert witnesses, and consumers and pertinent corporate actors when needed. Because of its efficiency, efficacy, and clarity, BPSK is still used for dispute resolution by a lot of clients. BPSK is confronted with several challenges, such as inconsistent regulations, restricted availability of BPSK, and low public awareness of the significance of safeguarding customers' rights.
Since Article 54 paragraph (3) of the GCPL states that conflicts settled by conciliation, mediation, or arbitration are final and enforceable under law, the primary issue is one of regulatory contradiction. Parties may submit an "objection" to the District Court within fourteen working days of the BPSK ruling if this article is connected to paragraph two of Article 56 of the GCPL, which is inconsistent and ineffectual. In conclusion, BPSK continues to be an essential resource for resolving customer issues despite the difficulties it has encountered in several areas, including its founding in Kabupaten/Kota.
- Increasing community knowledge about consumer rights is essential for safeguarding these rights and improving the overall effectiveness of consumer protection mechanisms.
- Enhancing the efficacy of consumer dispute resolution requires changes in legal substance, structure, and culture, including clearer laws and equitable distribution of BPSK offices.
- Inconsistent regulations, limited public awareness, and low access to BPSK hinder its ability to resolve consumer disputes effectively.
