Supreme court’s ruling in this case is quite a relief for most Indonesian consumers who suffered losses due to negligence of an institution or company. It is a rare win for consumers against big company. With this win, we hope consumer protection will be better in the future.
But if there is a problem like this are always conducted by the government, I think more cases says that the action or policies of government have tended to harm consumers in Indonesia rather than supporting improvement in services for consumers.
The case of the Governor of Jakarta who impressed ‘stubborn’ to raise parking levies by 200%, but not balanced by an increase in service to the people who become consumers, then the denial of the protection of consumers right in case of fuel could be some examples that the government really does not fully sided with consumer rights.
Constitutional Court’s decision in the case Hontas Tambunan who lost a parked car with the operator parking of a mall in Jakarta, just a lesson on the rights of consumers who are required to be fulfilled the ministry of goods or services, be it government or private. As well as Executive Committee members expressed the Indonesian Consumers Foundation, Sudaryatmo, park managers must abide by the decision of the Court because the verdict is final and binding. While it may on the other hand the government still could take a lesson from the case.
The government is still considered not yet able to provide a means for business policy compliance consumer rights let alone be a protector of consumers during the case the provider of goods or services harm consumers. Whereas in Law no. 8 of 1999 contained rules on consumer protection (UUPK). Whereas article 29 UUPK said “the government organization responsible for the development of consumer protection that ensures obtaining the rights of consumers and entrepreneurs as well as the implementation of consumer and business obligations.” But until now there has been no tangible form by the government to carry out the mandate.