Indonesian Journal of Law and Economics Review

Manufacturers' Liability for Skincare Product Safety Violations in the Context of Law No. 8 of 1999

Nailah Ariqah — 2025-12-02

General Background: The rapid growth of Indonesia’s skincare industry has increased consumer dependence on cosmetic products, while the circulation of hazardous and non-compliant items continues to rise. Specific Background: Despite regulatory controls under Law Number 8 of 1999 on Consumer Protection, many producers still disregard safety standards, leading to health risks and information asymmetry. Knowledge Gap: Existing studies seldom integrate legal doctrine, regulatory mechanisms, and practical enforcement challenges in analyzing producers’ liability for unsafe skincare products. Aim: This study examines the scope of legal liability borne by skincare producers for product safety violations under the Consumer Protection Law. Results: Findings show that the law imposes strict obligations on producers to ensure product safety, provide accurate information, and comply with BPOM standards; violations may trigger civil compensation, administrative sanctions, or criminal penalties. Novelty: This research systematically synthesizes strict liability, product liability, and preventive legal duties within the context of Indonesia’s contemporary skincare market, highlighting gaps between normative mandates and real-market practices. Implications: Strengthening regulatory enforcement, transparency, and consumer awareness is crucial for achieving a fair, ethical, and accountable skincare industry.

Highlights:

Highlights producers’ strict liability for ensuring skincare product safety.
Outlines civil, criminal, and administrative sanctions for safety violations.
Emphasizes the gap between legal regulations and real-world industry practices.

Keywords: Legal Liability, Skincare Producers, Product Safety, Consumer Protection, Strict Liability

Investigation Mechanism to Obtain Information from Suspects Allegedly Committing Criminal Acts

Rheihan Nurrizki Romlih — 2025-12-02

General background of this study lies in the central role of investigation as a crucial stage in the Indonesian criminal justice process, where investigators are responsible for collecting evidence and obtaining suspect statements under KUHAP. Specific background concerns recurring procedural deviations in practice, including coercive interrogation, absence of legal counsel, and improper documentation, which undermine due process and violate constitutional protections. Knowledge gap emerges from limited scholarly analysis that systematically connects the normative framework of KUHAP with its practical implementation in suspect examinations. This study aims to examine the investigation mechanisms for obtaining suspect statements while prioritizing legal protection, based on a normative legal research method analyzing statutory rules and legal doctrine. Results show that although KUHAP clearly regulates summons procedures, notification of rights, voluntary statements, prohibition of coercion, and standardized documentation through BAP, significant discrepancies remain in field practices. Novelty of this research lies in offering an integrated assessment of normative provisions, operational challenges, and concrete procedural reforms, particularly mandatory audio-visual recording and strengthened oversight. Implications highlight the urgency of improving investigator professionalism and ensuring transparent, accountable investigations to safeguard suspect rights and preserve the integrity of the criminal justice system.

Highlights:

Clear KUHAP procedures often differ from actual investigative practices.
Suspect statements must be obtained voluntarily without coercion.
Strong oversight and audio-visual recording are essential for accountable investigations.

Keywords: Investigation, Suspect Rights, KUHAP, Legal Protection, Criminal Procedure

Analysis of Unilateral Termination of Employment Without the Establishment of an Industrial Relations Dispute Resolution Institution in a Force Majeure Situation (Study of Supreme Court Decision Number 374 K/Pdt.Sus-PHI/2023)

Muhammad Restu Arrasyiid — 2025-12-03

General background: Termination of employment (PHK) in Indonesian labor law requires strict procedural safeguards to protect workers. Specific background: The rise of unilateral PHK during the COVID-19 pandemic, often justified as force majeure, created tensions between substantive justification and mandatory procedural requirements. Knowledge gap: Despite existing regulations, ambiguity persists regarding the legal definition, evidentiary standards, and interaction between force majeure provisions in Article 164(1) and the imperative procedural requirements of Article 151(3). Aims: This study analyzes the legal framework governing PHK due to force majeure and evaluates the validity of termination without formal determination by industrial relations dispute-resolution bodies, focusing on Supreme Court Decision No. 374 K/Pdt.Sus-PHI/2023. Results: Findings show that force majeure lacks a clear legal definition, enabling inconsistent interpretation; the Supreme Court affirmed that termination without procedural determination is null and void, yet still applied reduced compensation under Article 164(1), creating normative inconsistency and insufficient deterrence for employers. Novelty: This research identifies the dual inconsistency between procedural imperatives and substantive relief for employers, proposing a reconstructed normative framework. Implications: Clear statutory definitions, stricter evidentiary standards, and alignment between procedural compliance and compensation rules are required to strengthen worker protection and prevent misuse of force majeure claims.

Highlights:

Termination of employment without a determination from the industrial dispute settlement body is null and void pursuant to Article 151(3).
Force majeure is recognized but lacks a clear legal definition and standardized evidentiary requirements.
Supreme Court Decision 374/2023 reveals an inconsistency between procedural violations and the reduced compensation granted.

Keywords: Force Majeure, Employment Termination, Industrial Relations, Legal Procedure, Worker Protection

Legal Review of the Mechanism of Commission III of the House of Representatives of the Republic of Indonesia in Resolving Public Complaints

Poppy Primadana Top Gea — 2025-12-03

General Background: Komisi III DPR RI holds a strategic supervisory role in Indonesia’s legal governance, particularly in ensuring accountability and justice within law-enforcement institutions. Specific Background: The increasing volume of public complaints indicates growing public reliance on legislative oversight to address perceived injustices, procedural irregularities, and allegations of abuse of authority in the criminal justice system. Knowledge Gap: Despite its significance, the mechanism for processing complaints in Komisi III lacks standardized procedures and remains underexplored in academic legal studies, especially regarding its conformity with constitutional principles and good governance. Aims: This study aims to analyze the legal basis, implementation, and limitations of Komisi III’s complaint-handling mechanism, as well as identify structural and normative barriers that affect its effectiveness. Results: The findings show that complaints are handled through stages of submission, verification, hearings, and recommendations, yet face obstacles such as unclear boundaries of authority, absence of SOPs, bureaucratic constraints, political intervention, and weak inter-institutional coordination. Novelty: This research provides a comprehensive normative-juridical assessment integrating legal doctrine with practical institutional dynamics. Implications: Strengthening procedural clarity, transparency, and technology-based administration is essential to enhance Komisi III’s constitutional role in ensuring accountable, responsive, and rights-oriented law enforcement in Indonesia.

Highlights:

Komisi III’s complaint mechanism lacks standardized SOPs, creating inconsistencies.
Political dynamics and limited authority hinder effective follow-up of cases.
Strengthening transparency and digital systems is essential to improve public trust.

Keywords: Komisi III DPR RI, Public Complaints, Legislative Oversight, Legal Mechanism, Accountability