Chatrin Intan Sari

Consumer Protection on Illegal Drugs Cases in Indonesia

Introduction

Consumer protection on illegal drugs cases in indonesia. Investigate consumer protection & business accountability for illegal drug circulation in Indonesia. Examines BPOM's role & relevant laws (UUPK, Health Law).

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to know how the legal protection for consumers on the circulation of illegal drugs and how the accountability of business actors on the circulation of illegal drugs. By using normative juridical research method is concluded: 1. Legal protection to consumers on the circulation of illegal drugs conducted by the government through the Agency of Drugs and Food (BPOM). With this BPOM shows the attention that the government has run its supervision. In addition, the protection of consumer law arising from the existence of rights and obligations set forth in Article 4 letters a and c, article 7 letters a and d, article 8 paragraph 1 letter a, d and e of Law Number 8 Year 1999 concerning Consumer Protection. The fulfillment of consumer rights over security, the right to be heard, the correct, clear and honest information regulated in the UUPK is still not fulfilled. Article 98 paragraph 2, Article 106 paragraph 1 and 2 of Law Number 36 Year 2009 on Health. 2. The business actor is responsible as the manufacturer of the goods because the importer of the goods is not an agent or official importer. The business actor who is an individual shall be liable for the losses incurred even if only as an importer not as a producer of the goods. Related to the violation of Article 8 paragraph 1 letter a, d and e then based on Article 62 paragraph 1 Laws that sanctions may be subject to imprisonment a maximum of five years or a maximum fine of Rp. 2,000,000,000 (two billion rupiah). It is thus a legal basis which can be worn by consumers as a form of accountability, addressed to businessmen illegal drugs is a criminal sanction sebagimana governed by article 62 paragraph 1 of BFL.

Review

The study, "Consumer Protection on Illegal Drugs Cases in Indonesia," addresses a critically important and timely subject concerning public health and safety. The intersection of drug circulation and consumer welfare is highly relevant, especially within a developing legal landscape. However, the abstract immediately raises a fundamental conceptual ambiguity regarding the term "illegal drugs." This phrase typically refers to illicit narcotics, where the concept of a "consumer" with protected rights is legally problematic as the very act of consumption or purchase is unlawful. Conversely, if "illegal drugs" refers to counterfeit, unregistered, or unapproved pharmaceutical products, then the application of consumer protection laws, such as Indonesia's Law No. 8/1999 (UUPK), and the involvement of agencies like BPOM (Agency of Drugs and Food) become more pertinent. This crucial distinction is not clearly established in the abstract, which significantly impacts the coherence of the research questions and the applicability of the legal frameworks discussed. The research employs a normative juridical method, which is appropriate for analyzing legal texts and frameworks. The findings correctly identify BPOM's role in supervision and relevant articles from the UUPK and the Law on Health (No. 36/2009) that pertain to consumer protection. It also appropriately highlights the accountability of "business actors" involved in the circulation of these drugs, including the criminal sanctions available under the UUPK. However, a significant tension emerges when the abstract states that "The fulfillment of consumer rights over security, the right to be heard, the correct, clear and honest information regulated in the UUPK is still not fulfilled," immediately after asserting that BPOM demonstrates governmental attention and supervision. This contradiction is not explored, leaving the reader to question whether the issue lies in the inadequacy of the legal framework, the effectiveness of enforcement, or other systemic challenges. The abstract presents a legal basis for accountability but doesn't fully articulate how these provisions practically translate into *protection* for consumers in the context of potentially illicit transactions. To enhance the paper's clarity and impact, it is imperative for the authors to precisely define "illegal drugs" at the outset. If the scope is indeed counterfeit or unapproved medicines, the discussion on consumer protection becomes more directly applicable, and the paper should then delve deeper into *why* consumer rights remain unfulfilled despite existing regulations and oversight. This would require a more critical analysis of enforcement mechanisms, regulatory gaps, or societal factors. If, however, the scope includes illicit narcotics, the paper must then explicitly address the complex legal and ethical challenges of extending "consumer protection" to such inherently illegal transactions. Overall, while the study tackles a vital subject, a more rigorous conceptual framing and a deeper exploration of the practical discrepancies between legal provisions and their actual implementation would significantly strengthen its contribution to the field.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.