The purpose of this study is to analyse PERMA No. 1 of 2006 which is a guideline for the District Court as well as consumers and business actors regarding the procedure for filing objections to decisions of the Consumer Dispute Resolution Agency (BPSK) which had not previously been regulated in the UUPK Law. One of the things that is regulated in PERMA No. 1 of 2006 through Article 3 paragraph (3) is that the Consumer Dispute Resolution Body is not a party to the filing of objections to consumer disputes. Article 3 paragraph (3) of PERMA No. 1 Of 2006 contains new norms that were not previously regulated by the UUPK.

This research discusses the ratio legis of BPSK not being a party in the objection of consumer disputes and how the legal consequences of BPSK as a Respondent in the objection of consumer disputes. This research is a doctrinal legal research that uses statute approach and conceptual approach. The results of the analysis of the writing of Article 3 paragraph (3) of PERMA No. 1 Of 2006 as a form of affirmation that BPSK is not a party, but an institution that has the duty and authority to handle and resolve consumer disputes. The existence of Article 3 paragraph (3) of PERMA 1/2006 gives legal consequences that if BPSK is included as a party to the objection, the District Court will give a decision that the lawsuit cannot be accepted. Although there are differences in the regulations in UUPK and PERMA 1/2006, with the existence of the AAPS Law, if there are problems related to arbitration at BPSK, the legal rules used are special rules, namely UUPK and its derivative rules including PERMA 1/2006.

The conclusion of this research is The ratio legis of PERMA 1/2006 is to fill the legal vacuum regarding the filing of objections to BPSK decisions which previously had not been clearly and thoroughly regulated in the GCPL Law. One of the things regulated in PERMA 1/2006 is Article 3 paragraph (3) which regulates that BPSK is not a party to the objection process in the District Court. The existence of Article 3 paragraph (3) of PERMA 1/2006 is a form of confirmation that in consumer disputes the party in dispute is the consumer and the business actor, so BPSK is not a party to the dispute, but an institution that has the duty and authority to handle and resolve disputes that occur between consumers and business actors. The existence of Article 3 paragraph (3) PERMA 1/2006 has a legal consequence that if BPSK is included as a party to the objection, the District Court will give a decision that the lawsuit cannot be accepted or niet-ontvankelijke verklaard.

The reason why the panel of judges decided that the petition for cancellation could not be accepted was because the petition contained a formal defect in the form of error in persona or a wrong party claim in the form of gemis aanhoeda nigheid or a form of error in persona because the person drawn as the defendant was mistaken. Although there is a difference between the regulation on objection in GCPL and PERMA 1/2006, with the regulation on cancellation in the AAPS Law, if the problem is related to arbitration in BPSK, then the rule of law used is the special rule, namely GCPL and its derivative rules including PERMA 1/2006, overriding the general rule, namely the AAPS Law.

Author: Bambang Sugeng Ariadi Subagyono, S.H., M.H.

Journal: THE POSITION OF THE CONSUMER DISPUTE SETTLEMENT BODY IN THE EFFORT TO SUBMIT A CONSUMER DISPUTE OBJECTION