Hera Diani, Jakarta – The passing of the consumer protection law seven years ago was lauded as a landmark step toward allowing public recourse against poor and negligent service.

But it would be hard to say today that the public is much better off. Confusion and ignorance on all sides continue to plague its haphazard implementation, and legal experts point out it is riddled with flaws.

In one case, where children became ill after eating donated cookies that were past their sell-by-date, the police turned to the Criminal Code in their investigation.

In another, a consumer who felt cheated after purchasing a cellular phone card sued for Rp 500 million compensation, despite a loss of only Rp 9,000 (a little less than US$1).

And doctors and lawyers have refused to be tried under the law, saying their practices are not business oriented.

Consumer activist Agus Pambagio said indifferent businesspeople, permissive consumers unaware of their rights and law enforcers similarly ignorant about consumer protection regulations all contributed to its unsatisfactory implementation.

"In the case of the expired cookies, for instance, the police should have used the consumer protection law," he said in a discussion Friday.

Johannes Gunawan, a law professor from Bandung's Parahyangan Catholic University and a member of National Consumer Protection Agency, said in the discussion that branches of the agency should be available in every city and regency. "There are only eight active branches all over the country. Even these have poor facilities and human resources."

Johannes said the real problem was the rushed drafting of the law, which he believed was in need of immediate amendment, particularly to divide the areas of consumer goods and consumer services. He also faulted courts in consumer cases for opting for criminal sanctions, instead of considering penal or administrative measures.

"Criminal sanctions should be the last resort. However, the move is understandable because the penal sanctions stipulated in the law are too light and unattractive to consumer. And the administrative sanctions have no clear regulations."

The definition of businesses, he added, must be revised because economic activities could encompass both profit-oriented professions and livelihoods. "Doctors and lawyers who have refused to be included in this law fall into the latter category. They do indeed provide services to patients."

Both men urged the public to study up on the law's tenets and use it to their benefit while awaiting its amendment. They noted that Article 18 bans standardized contracts, but that these were the norm for parking agencies and insurance companies.