Implementasi Prinsip Pembuktian Terbalik Dalam Penyelesaian Sengketa Konsumen Di BPSK

Abstract

Article 28 Consumer Protection Act (CPA) regulates the reversal burden of proof that imposing the proof of fault to businesses. However, it is not sufficiently clear and decisive set in CPA, so the implementation still poses various problems. The legal issues examined in this research are about the process of sharing the burden of proof in consumer disputes settlement at BPSK and juridical implications of a BPSK decision that is not in accordance with the process of proof that has been regulated in CPA. The results obtained from this study show that the reversal burden of proof principle can not be applied literally without seeing the case being handled. Implementation of reversal burden of proof principle should still consider the general principle of proof in Article 1865 of the The Code of Civil Law. This provision authorizes BPSK Assembly to order one party to prove on matters presented by referring to the reversal burden of proof principle. In addition, the exceptions in Article 19 Paragraph (5) and Article 27 of CPA should still be considered. BPSK decision can be accepted and implemented or can be denied due process of evidence is not in accordance with the regulation. Discordance procedures of the process of proof creates legal implication in the form of BPSK decision cancellation which can only be reached through the legal remedy of objection and appeal as provided in Article 56 Paragraph (2) and Article 58 Paragraph (2)CPA.