JAKARTA - The long journey of consumer protection from carcinogenic sheet asbestos has once again found a bright spot. The DKI Jakarta High Court in the decision on Case Number 400 / Pdt / 2025 / PT DKI dated November 17, 2025 did not change the inapplicability of Permendag Number 25 of 2021 which had been decided by the Supreme Court (MA) in March 2024.
In his ruling, the PT DKI Jakarta judge did not touch on the main dispute between the asbestos industry association (FICMA) and the consumer protection agency (LPLSM) Yasa Nata Budi.
The FICMA case began when Permendag Number 25 of 2021 was decided by the Constitutional Court to be contrary to Law Number 7 of 2014 concerning Trade and declared not applicable. This is because the Permendag does not require labels and warnings of dangerous and toxic goods (B3) for corrugated and flat asbestos products that can harm the community and consumers who use asbestos goods.
Based on the decision of the Constitutional Court judge, FICMA reacted to cancel the Constitutional Court's decision. FICMA filed a lawsuit against LPKSM Yasa Nata Budi for not involving his group in the judicial review filed by LPKSM Yasa Nata Budi. The consumer protection agency was also sued by FICMA for a total of Rp.790 billion in compensation for potential losses of Rp.7.9 trillion that its members are alleged to have suffered.
Responding to the decision of PT DKI, Leo Yoga Pranata, one of the defendants representing LPKSM Yasa Nata Budi, said that the Judge's Decision was an affirmation of the importance of the B3 label and warning on every asbestos product. Leo even thanked FICMA for wanting to dismantle the risky business practices. According to him, the decision of the PT DKI judge, although strange, has proven to have not changed the previous MA decision at all.
"We are grateful to FICMA for the commotion they made, finally all of Indonesia and the world know that the asbestos they traded in Indonesia has spread carcinogenic risks for decades. Now they have to put a label and B3 warning because it has been decided by the Supreme Court and confirmed by PT DKI," he said.
Although PT DKI has decided not to include what has been decided by the Constitutional Court, the Head of the Advocacy Team, Dadan J Priandana, said that there were a number of irregularities that had been made by the panel of judges.
Dadan said the PT DKI judge had exceeded the authority granted by the judicial power law. According to him, the PT DKI judge had not carefully assessed the text and context of the PMH lawsuit filed by FICMA.
"What is striking is that the judge decided that krisotil was needed, not dangerous, and was protected by the ratification of the Rotterdam Convention. This decision creates a new legal norm that is declarative regarding the nature of a chemical substance. The PT judge does not have that authority," he said.
Coordinator of INABAN, a gathering of activists to eliminate diseases due to asbestos, Darisman emphasized that the decision of PT DKI on the one hand gave clarity that the Permendag which did not follow the provisions of the B3 label in handling Asbestos must be withdrawn. But on the other hand, PT DKI also created new ambiguities in the community.
"Saying that krisotil is needed, not dangerous, and protected by the law is actually creating ambiguity, ambiguity. The jurisdiction should be about legal action, not deciding on scientific action. Needs, unhappiness, it must be a scientific consideration," he explained.
In line with Darisman, the Director of Lion Indonesia said that the decision of the PT DKI Judge who decided that the krisotil was not dangerous not only created legal uncertainty. This, according to him, will be a legalisation of legal actions that put Indonesian consumers at risk of a more terrible risk. According to him, in the future the industry will increasingly feel free to use materials that are risky for the environment and humans in the name of being legal, not dangerous, and protected,
"If this is used and becomes a precedent in the future, it may be that many lethal chemicals will be decided to be legal because they are needed, not dangerous and protected by law. The warning label for B3 goods is actually the most rational and moderate. Greed makes it seem unnecessary," he said.
English:
The coordinator for advocacy for the labeling of asbestos product hazards, Dhiccy Sandewa, who is also the target of the FICMA lawsuit, emphasized that the feud that has lasted for more than a year must end immediately. According to him, because of the FICMA lawsuit, the trade ministry continues to make excuses for not immediately making a replacement regulation that confirms the obligation of labels and warning signs.
"This matter actually makes the state, especially the trade ministry, guilty of not immediately issuing new rules in accordance with the Supreme Court's decision. The matter that FICMA has filed has trapped the ministry to act in disregard of the law and the constitution. This is very dangerous and the community is harmed," he said.
Until now, Permendag No. 25 of 2021 which has been decided by the Constitutional Court is contrary to Article (2) of Law Number 7 of 2014 concerning Trade, and Article 23 paragraph (3) of Government Regulation Number 29 of 2021 concerning the Implementation of the Trade Sector has not yet been issued by the Ministry of Trade.
It has been 20 months that the Ministry of Trade has acted by ignoring the Supreme Court's decision. There has been no action taken by FICMA to comply with Indonesian law by placing labels and warning signs on its products. The production of FICMA members in 20 months continues to circulate targeting illiterate people.
The English, Chinese, Japanese, Arabic, and French versions are automatically generated by the AI. So there may still be inaccuracies in translating, please always see Indonesian as our main language. (system supported by DigitalSiber.id)
