出版社：International Institute for Science, Technology and Education
摘要：Based on article 1 subsection (1) of Act Number 8 Year 1999, government forms Consumer Disputes Resolution Agency (CDRA) in region level II (regency/city) to solve consumer disputes outside court. Forming of CDRA is expected may give protection to the consumer in solving the dispute efficiently, quickly, cheaply and professionally. But there is a bias in management of CDRA in Act Number 8 Year 1999 and causing conflict among norms inside the act, causing legitimation of CDRA becomes weak. Moreover, the problem of the study is appearing or looking for legitimation of institution and authority of CDRA in solving the consumer dispute based on Act Number 8 Year 1999 about Consumer Protection.The method used in this study is normative study focused on law institution. The approach used in this study is act approach and conceptual approach. Based on the study that the legitimation of CDRA in solving the dispute consumer outside court has weak basis, because Article 4 subsection (1) Act Number 8 Year 1999 says law basis of CDRA forming has bias /unclear, deal with government authority who has the authority to form CDRA, and kind of Act in CDRA forming. Moreover, no implementing regulation from Article 49 subsection (1) Act Number 8 Year 1999, causing law emptiness about mechanism of CDRA forming in region. Then, CDRA authority in Article 52 Act Number 8 Year 1999 valued over the main authority given Article 49 subsection (1) Act Number 8 year 1999, who only gives authority to CDRA to solve consumer dispute. As a result the legitimation of CDRA as a board of dispute solving for consumer outside court becomes illegitimated.
其他摘要：Based on article 1 subsection (1) of Act Number 8 Year 1999, government forms Consumer Disputes Resolution Agency (CDRA) in region level II (regency/city) to solve consumer disputes outside court. Forming of CDRA is expected may give protection to the consumer in solving the dispute efficiently, quickly, cheaply and professionally. But there is a bias in management of CDRA in Act Number 8 Year 1999 and causing conflict among norms inside the act, causing legitimation of CDRA becomes weak. Moreover, the problem of the study is appearing or looking for legitimation of institution and authority of CDRA in solving the consumer dispute based on Act Number 8 Year 1999 about Consumer Protection.The method used in this study is normative study focused on law institution. The approach used in this study is act approach and conceptual approach. Based on the study that the legitimation of CDRA in solving the dispute consumer outside court has weak basis, because Article 4 subsection (1) Act Number 8 Year 1999 says law basis of CDRA forming has bias /unclear, deal with government authority who has the authority to form CDRA, and kind of Act in CDRA forming. Moreover, no implementing regulation from Article 49 subsection (1) Act Number 8 Year 1999, causing law emptiness about mechanism of CDRA forming in region. Then, CDRA authority in Article 52 Act Number 8 Year 1999 valued over the main authority given Article 49 subsection (1) Act Number 8 year 1999, who only gives authority to CDRA to solve consumer dispute. As a result the legitimation of CDRA as a board of dispute solving for consumer outside court becomes illegitimated. Keywords : Legitimation, Authority, Consumer, Protection, Disputes, Consumer Disputes Resolution Agency (CDRA)
