Abstract:
In 2001, Indonesia established the Consumer Dispute Resolution Body (CDRB) based on the instruction of
the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) in 1999 to provide consumers protection in exercising their rights and
to settle disputes quickly, simply, affordably, and professionally. Compared to the systems established by
several countries that submit common law systems in which dispute-solving cases are terminated by the
special courts called Small Claims Courts or Small Claims Tribunals, CDRB construction in Indonesia was
quite vague. Although it uses arbitration terminology, the CDRB lacks an arbitration mechanism because,
in practice, the body examines consumer disputes, working formally as a court. The root of this problem
arose from the inconsistent regulation in the CPA. This article aims to review the CDRB construction
problem compared to systems in other countries, to find recommendations for CPA amendments and
discuss the future prospects. This study suggests two solutions: The first is the strict separation of litigation
and non-litigation dispute resolution. The second is the formation of both online litigation and nonlitigation systems. With these systems, the CDRB becomes a substitute institution, meaning that this body
is the only system for small claim resolution for disputing parties.
