Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Skripsi ini membahas tentang dugaan pelanggaran Pasal 15 ayat (2) mengenai tying agreement dan Pasal 17 mengenai monopoli UU Nomor 5 Tahun 1999 yang dilakukan oleh PT. Pelindo II (Persero) dan PT. MTI terkait penggunaan Gantry Luffing Crane di Pelabuhan Tanjung Priok. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode yuridis normatif dengan menggunakan pendekatan analisis data kualitatif. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa KPPU dalam membuktikan adanya pelanggaran Pasal 15 ayat (2) dan Pasal 17, lebih relevan menggunakan pendekatan rule of reason yang mengedepankan dampak persaingan. Kemudian, pengaturan kesesuaian UU Nomor 5 Tahun 1999 terkait penggunaan Gantry Luffing Crane da[at dikecualikan berdasarkan Pasal 50 huruf a dan Pasal 51.

---

This thesis discusses about the alleged violations of Article 15 verse (2) about tying agreement and Article 17 about monopoly Law Number 5 Year 1999 conducted by PT. Pelindo II (Persero) and PT. MTI regarding the use of Gantry Luffing Crane in Tanjung Priok harbor. This research use the juridical normative methods using qualitative data analysis approach. The results showed that KPPU In proving the existance of a breach of Article 15 verse (2) and Article 17, using a more relevant approach to the rule of reason more relevant use approach rule of reason that puts the impact of competition. Then, setting of suitability of Law Number 5 Year 1999 related the use of Gantry Luffing Crane can be excluded on basis of Article 50 letters A and Article 51."

"ILO menyebutkan bahwa salah satu kategori potensi bahaya pada operator crane adalah bahaya ergonomi dan psikososial. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis postur kerja operator crane di PT. XXX cabang Tanjung Priok tahun 2021. Desain penelitian adalah penelitian deskriptif. Hasil penelitian akan dianalisis dengan menggunakan lembar kerja REBA Selanjutnya dianalisis kaitannya dengan keluhan gangguan otot rangka, dan interaksi dengan tempat kerja yang menimbulkan risiko ergonomi. Penelitian ini berfokus hanya pada aktivitas mengoperasikan crane. Penilaian postur kerja dilakukan pada operator crane dengan desain saat ini. kemudian dibuat dua usulan desain kabin crane. Desain ulang dilakukan dalam perangkat lunak Aplikasi SketchUp versi 2018 kemudian dilakukan evaluasi postur kerja sesuai usulan desain kabin crane. Studi ini menunjukkan bahwa intervensi ergonomi di tempat kerja mengurangi potur kerja yang tidak sesuai antara manusia dan mesin serta membuat tempat kerja nyaman untuk bekerja.

---

The ILO states that one of the categories of potential hazards to crane operators is ergonomics and psychosocial hazards. This study aims to analyze the work posture of crane operators at PT. XXX Tanjung Priok branch in 2021. The research design is a descriptive study. The results of the study will be analyzed using the REBA worksheet. Furthermore, it will be analyzed in relation to complaints of skeletal muscle disorders, and interactions with the workplace that pose ergonomic risks. This research focuses only on the activity of operating a crane. Assessment of work posture is carried out on the crane operator with the current design, then two crane cabin design proposals are made. The redesign was carried out in the 2018 version of the SketchUp Application software, then an evaluation of the work posture was carried out according to the crane cabin design proposal. This study shows that ergonomics interventions in the workplace reduce the mismatch between humans and machines and also make the workplace comfortable to work."

"Penelitian ini membahas pengaturan hukum persaingan usaha mengenai tying agreement dan Penguasaan Pasar dengan melakukan analisis terhadap Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Utara No. 01/PDT.KPPU/2013/PN.JKT.UT. Penelitian ini bersifat yuridis normatif dengan metode pengolahan dan analisis data yang menggunakan pendekatan kualitaif. Dalam UU No. 5 Tahun 1999 digolongkan bahwa tying agreement merupakan salah satu dari Perjanjian Yang Dilarang sedangkan Penguasaan Pasar merupakan salah satu dari Kegiatan Yang Dilarang. Kedua pasal tersebut berbeda dan dapat berdiri sendiri, maka penting bagi lembaga penegak hukum persaingan usaha untuk menjabarkan lagi mengenai tying agreement dan Penguasaan Pasar demi terciptanya praktik persaingan usaha yang sehat di Indonesia.

---

This research studies law regulation in competition law about tying agreement and market controlling by analyzing North Jakarta District Court's Verdict No. 01/PDT.KPPU/2013/PN.JKT.UT. This research is juridicial normative with qualitative method and analysis. In Law No. 5 Year 1999, tying agreement is classified as one of Prohibited Contracts, while Market Controlling is classified as one of Banned Activities. Both articles are different from each other and independent, so that it is important for competition law enforcement institution to elaborate more about tying agreement and market controlling for a fair business competition in Indonesia."

"PT (Persero) Pelindo II merupakan salah satu Badan Usaha Milik Negara yang memiliki bidang usaha jasa kepelabuhanan yang terdiri dari layanan jasa pemanduan, jasa barang, jasa penyewaan alat, jasa terminal (umum dan peti kemas), penyewaan poperti (tanah, bangunan, air, dan listrik), pelayanan pelabuhan khusus, serta pelayanan rupa-rupa. Perusahaan ini mengelola dan mengoperasikan 12 pelabuhan di 10 propinsi di Indonesia yang salah satunya adalah pelabuhan Tanjung Priok.Dalam era otonomi daerah dan perdagangan bebas AFTA, dimana sering terjadi perubahan di lingkungan makro dan adanya permintaan pemerintah daerah untuk mengelola pelabuhan di daerahnya disertai persaingan di dunia internasional terhadap pelayanan jasa kepelabuhanan yang Iebih baik, maka PT (Persero) Pelindo II dituntut unluk membenahi fasilitas infrastruktur dan regulasi pengelolaan Pelabuhan Tanjung Priok guna meningkatkan daya saing nasional dan internasional terutama dengan kompetitor-kompetitor di negara Iain.Untuk mengetahui persiapan dari PT (Persero) Pelindo Il dalam mengantisipasi setiap perubahan dari Iingkungan ekstemal dengan sumber daya internal yang dimiliki, maka diperlukan analisis strategi bisnis perusahaan. Metode penelitian yang dilakukan adalah metode penelitian kualitatif deskriptif dimana penelitian dilakukan dengan cara mengumpulkan data-data serta laporan yang berhubungan dengan penelitian disertai dengan melakukan wawancara dan memberikan kuisioner kepada responden yang mengetahui bisnis pengelolaan fasilitas pelabuhan Tanjung Priok, diantaranya 4 orang manajer PT. (Persero) Pelindo II, 4 orang staf PT.(Persero) Pelindo II, 1 orang pengurus INSA, serta 1 orang dari Bagian Perencanaan Ditjen Perhubungan Laut.Penelitian ini berdasarkan analisis faktor-faktor kondisi eksternal dan internal perusahaan dengan meneliti peringkat, bobot, maupun tingkat kepentingan dari setiap fungsi-fungsi yang yang dimiliki. Hasil yang diperoleh digunakan untuk mengetahui posisi bisnis PT (Persero) Pelindo ll dalam mengelola fasilitas pelabuhan Tanjung Priok dengan menggunakan matriks EFE dan IFE, serta matrik General Electric. Posisi bisnis perusahaan yang dilunjukkan pada kedua matrik tersebut berada pada posisi di pertumbuhan (growth). Dengan mengevaluasi posisi bisnis, kekuatan, kelemahan, peluang, dan ancaman maka srrategi bisnis altemative yang cocok untuk ditawarkan di masa akan datang adalah strategi pengembangan produk, kemudian untuk mendukung dan menunjang strategi bisnis altenatif tersebut maka ditawarkan juga strategi fungsional dimana strategi ini untuk memperkuat setiap fungsi-fungsi yang ada pada faktor internal perusahaan.

---

PT. (Persero) Pelindo II is one of the state-owned company which is belong to the Country that provides and manage services which is divided into towage service, port infrastructure facilities, rental for equipment services, terminal services (public and container) rentals for properties (land, buildings, waters, and electricity ), the special port services, also other services. This company manages and operates 12 ports in 10 provinces in Indonesia and one of them is Port of Tanjung Priok.

In the era of autonomy and AFTA free trade, where there is an often change at macro environment and there is a demand from the govemment of provinces to manage the port inside their area also a competition in the intemational world to make a better services of the port, so PT. Pelindo II is being demanded for making a better infrastructure facility also the regulation of Tanjung Priok port?s management for developing the national and international competition especially with other competitors in other countries.

To know about the preparation of PT. Pelindo II for anticipating every changes of the external environment with the internal sources that they had, so it needs an analyze of the company business strategy. The method ofthe research was the method of research of qualitative descriptive where the research has been done by collecting the data?s also reports that has a connection with the research along with all the interviews and gave the questioners to all respondents who knows about the business that manage the facility of Tanjung Priok port, the few of them were 4 Managers of PT. (Persero) Pelindo ll, 4 staffs of PT. (Persero) Pelindo ll, I person who is running INSA , and 1 person who is working in each internal company?s factors from The Department of Sea Transportation.

This research is based on analyzed the company?s internal and external factors through researching the stage, weight, also the importance level of each function that they had. The result that has been taken was being used for knowing about a business position of PT. Pelindo ll in managing all facilities of Tanjung Priok Port, it was using matrix EPE and IFE, also matrix General Electric. The company?s business position that has been showed to both matrixes was growth. By evaluating-business position, strength, weakness, opportunities, also threats, so, there by the strategy of business alternative which is the most appropriate to offer in the future is the strategy of product development, which is able to support and back up that strategy of business alternative so there was also an offer for functional strategy where this strategy is for making each functions that are inside company?s internal factors more stronger."

"[Skripsi ini membahas mengenai putusan Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usahatentang kewajiban penggunaan alat bongkar muat Gantry Luffing Crane. Dalamrangka meningkatkan efisiensi dan produktivitas bongkar muat di lingkunganPelabuhan Tanjung Priok, Para terlapor yakni PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II dan PTMulti Terminal Indonesia mengeluarkan surat pemberitahuan pemakaian alatbongkar muat Gantry Luffing Crane secara bersama-sama di Dermaga 101, 101utara, 102, 114 dan 115 bagi para pengguna jasa pelabuhan. Tindakan tersebutdirasa KPPU merupakan salah satu bentuk persaingan yang tidak sehat karena PTPelabuhan Indonesia II dan PT Multi Terminal Indonesia dinilai telah melakukantying agreement dan praktik monopoli yang merugikan pengguna jasa pelabuhan.Dalam memutus perkara ini, KPPU menjatuhkan hukuman kepada mereka denganketentuan pasal 15 ayat (2) Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999. Skripsi yangdibuat dengan metode yuridis normatif ini meyimpulkan bahwa KPPU tidak tepatdalam memutus bersalah para terlapor dengan ketentuan mengenai tyingagreement dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999, mengingat suratpemberitahuan bukanlah termasuk dalam pengertian perjanjian.;This thesis discusses about Decision of The Commission for The Supervision ofBussiness Competition (KPPU) about the obligation to use loading and unloadingequipment, Gantry Luffing Crane.In order to improve the efficiency andproductivity of loading and unloading in the Port of Tanjung Priok, The Parties,PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Mult Terminal Indonesia issued a letter ofnotification of the use of loading and unloading equipment Gantry Luffing Cranetogether at pier 101, 101 north, 102, 114 dan 115 for the users port services.According the Commision, this case one form of unfair bussiness competitionbecause PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Multi Terminal Indonesia have done atying agreement and monopoly practices that harm users port service. In decidingthis case, the Commission condemned them with the provisions of Article 15paragraph (2) of Law No. 5 of 1999. Thesis created with this normative juridicalmethod concludes that the Commission was not appropriate in deciding the guiltof the reported with the provisions of the agreement tying in Law No. 5 of 1999,considering letter of the notification is not included in the definition of theagreement.;This thesis discusses about Decision of The Commission for The Supervision ofBussiness Competition (KPPU) about the obligation to use loading and unloadingequipment, Gantry Luffing Crane.In order to improve the efficiency andproductivity of loading and unloading in the Port of Tanjung Priok, The Parties,PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Mult Terminal Indonesia issued a letter ofnotification of the use of loading and unloading equipment Gantry Luffing Cranetogether at pier 101, 101 north, 102, 114 dan 115 for the users port services.According the Commision, this case one form of unfair bussiness competitionbecause PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Multi Terminal Indonesia have done atying agreement and monopoly practices that harm users port service. In decidingthis case, the Commission condemned them with the provisions of Article 15paragraph (2) of Law No. 5 of 1999. Thesis created with this normative juridicalmethod concludes that the Commission was not appropriate in deciding the guiltof the reported with the provisions of the agreement tying in Law No. 5 of 1999,considering letter of the notification is not included in the definition of theagreement.;This thesis discusses about Decision of The Commission for The Supervision ofBussiness Competition (KPPU) about the obligation to use loading and unloadingequipment, Gantry Luffing Crane.In order to improve the efficiency andproductivity of loading and unloading in the Port of Tanjung Priok, The Parties,PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Mult Terminal Indonesia issued a letter ofnotification of the use of loading and unloading equipment Gantry Luffing Cranetogether at pier 101, 101 north, 102, 114 dan 115 for the users port services.According the Commision, this case one form of unfair bussiness competitionbecause PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Multi Terminal Indonesia have done atying agreement and monopoly practices that harm users port service. In decidingthis case, the Commission condemned them with the provisions of Article 15paragraph (2) of Law No. 5 of 1999. Thesis created with this normative juridicalmethod concludes that the Commission was not appropriate in deciding the guiltof the reported with the provisions of the agreement tying in Law No. 5 of 1999,considering letter of the notification is not included in the definition of theagreement.;This thesis discusses about Decision of The Commission for The Supervision ofBussiness Competition (KPPU) about the obligation to use loading and unloadingequipment, Gantry Luffing Crane.In order to improve the efficiency andproductivity of loading and unloading in the Port of Tanjung Priok, The Parties,PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Mult Terminal Indonesia issued a letter ofnotification of the use of loading and unloading equipment Gantry Luffing Cranetogether at pier 101, 101 north, 102, 114 dan 115 for the users port services.According the Commision, this case one form of unfair bussiness competitionbecause PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Multi Terminal Indonesia have done atying agreement and monopoly practices that harm users port service. In decidingthis case, the Commission condemned them with the provisions of Article 15paragraph (2) of Law No. 5 of 1999. Thesis created with this normative juridicalmethod concludes that the Commission was not appropriate in deciding the guiltof the reported with the provisions of the agreement tying in Law No. 5 of 1999,considering letter of the notification is not included in the definition of theagreement.;This thesis discusses about Decision of The Commission for The Supervision ofBussiness Competition (KPPU) about the obligation to use loading and unloadingequipment, Gantry Luffing Crane.In order to improve the efficiency andproductivity of loading and unloading in the Port of Tanjung Priok, The Parties,PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Mult Terminal Indonesia issued a letter ofnotification of the use of loading and unloading equipment Gantry Luffing Cranetogether at pier 101, 101 north, 102, 114 dan 115 for the users port services.According the Commision, this case one form of unfair bussiness competitionbecause PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Multi Terminal Indonesia have done atying agreement and monopoly practices that harm users port service. In decidingthis case, the Commission condemned them with the provisions of Article 15paragraph (2) of Law No. 5 of 1999. Thesis created with this normative juridicalmethod concludes that the Commission was not appropriate in deciding the guiltof the reported with the provisions of the agreement tying in Law No. 5 of 1999,considering letter of the notification is not included in the definition of theagreement., This thesis discusses about Decision of The Commission for The Supervision ofBussiness Competition (KPPU) about the obligation to use loading and unloadingequipment, Gantry Luffing Crane.In order to improve the efficiency andproductivity of loading and unloading in the Port of Tanjung Priok, The Parties,PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Mult Terminal Indonesia issued a letter ofnotification of the use of loading and unloading equipment Gantry Luffing Cranetogether at pier 101, 101 north, 102, 114 dan 115 for the users port services.According the Commision, this case one form of unfair bussiness competitionbecause PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Multi Terminal Indonesia have done atying agreement and monopoly practices that harm users port service. In decidingthis case, the Commission condemned them with the provisions of Article 15paragraph (2) of Law No. 5 of 1999. Thesis created with this normative juridicalmethod concludes that the Commission was not appropriate in deciding the guiltof the reported with the provisions of the agreement tying in Law No. 5 of 1999,considering letter of the notification is not included in the definition of theagreement.]"

"Industri usaha transportasi penyeberangan di Indonesia menjadi salah satu industri usaha yang penting dan banyak dimanfaatkan oleh masyarakat. Melihat bahwa Indonesia merupakan negara kepulauan yang terdiri dari beberapa pulau dan dipisahkan oleh laut sehingga untuk melakukan perpindahan mobilisasi dari pulau-pulau yang dipisahkan laut maka dibutuhkan alat transportasi angkut penyeberangan untuk membantu masyarakat berpindah secara efektif dan efisien. Salah satu pelabuhan yang paling ramai dikunjungi oleh konsumen yaitu pelabuhan merak – bakauheni yang berada di Banten dan Lampung. Dermaga baru didirikan di pelabuhan merak bakauheni dengan menggunakan konsep sebagai “dermaga eksekutif” dimana dalam dermaga tersebut pelayanan yang akan diberikan pada konsumen akan jauh lebih berkualitas daripada di dermaga lainnya. Dermaga eksekutif ini dibangun oleh negara untuk memberikan kenyamanan kepada para konsumen. Namun, terdapat permasalahan yang muncul dimana dermaga eksekutif ini hanya dioperasikan oleh satu perusahaan saja yaitu perusahaan BUMN (PT ASDP Indonesia Ferry). Tidak ada perusahaan operator penyeberangan lain yang ikut mengoperasikan kapal-kapal milik mereka di dermaga eksekutif. PT ASDP Indonesia Ferry sebagai pihak yang mengelola dermaga dan juga sebagai perusahaan yang menawarkan jasa angkut kapal sehingga market control yang dimiliki sangat besar. Kecurigaan-kecurigaan ini mengarahkan pada pelanggaran praktik monopoli dan penguasaan pasar dalam usaha jasa penyeberangan di dermaga eksekutif. Pada akhirnya, penulis, memberikan kesimpulan bahwa telah terjadi praktik monopoli dan pelanggaran persaingan usaha di dermaga eksekutif diakibatkan oleh besarnya market control yang dipegang oleh PT ASDP Indonesia Ferry sehingga menyebabkan dampak kerugian yang diterima oleh perusahaan swasta lain dan konsumen.

---

The ferry transportation business industry in Indonesia is one of the most important industries and is widely used by the community. Knowing that Indonesia is an archipelagic country consisting of several islands and separated by the sea, so that in order to carry out the mobilization of the islands separated by the sea, it is necessary to use cross-transportation to help people move effectively and efficiently. One of the most crowded ports visited by consumers is the Merak - Bakauheni port in Banten and Lampung. The new wharf was built at the port of Merak Bakauheni using the concept of an “executive wharf” in which the services that will be provided to consumers will be much higher quality than at other docks. This executive dock was built by the state to provide comfort to consumers. However, there are problems that arise where this executive dock is only operated by one company only, namely a state-owned corporation (PT ASDP Indonesia Ferry). There are no other ferry operators operating their vessels at the executive dock. PT ASDP Indonesia Ferry as the party that manages the wharf and also as a company that offers ship transportation services so that the market control it has is very large. These suspicions lead to the violation of monopolistic practices and market control in the ferry transportation business at the executive dock. In the end, the author concludes that there have been monopolistic practices and business competition violations at the executive dock caused by the large market control held by PT ASDP Indonesia Ferry, causing the impact of losses to other private ferry companies consumers.

"

"BUMN dan lembaga lainnya yang dibentuk atau ditunjuk oleh pemerintah dapat dikecualikan dari Undang-Undang Persaingan. Pasal 33 Undang-Undang Dasar 1945 dan Pasal 51 Undang-undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999 tentang Larangan Praktek Monopoli dan Persaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat memberikan hak monopoli kepada BUMN untuk menyelenggarakan monopoli dan/atau pemusatan kegiatan yang berkaitan dengan produksi dan/atau pemasaran barang dan/atau jasa yang menguasai hajat hidup orang banyak serta cabang-cabang produksi yang penting bagi negara.Dalam tulisan ini akan diberikan contoh satu lembaga BUMN, yaitu PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II (Persero) atau PT Pelindo II yang pada mulanya telah mendapatkan hak monopoli berdasarkan Undang-undang Nomor 21 Tahun 1992 tentang Pelayaran yang kemudian hak monopoli tersebut dihapus dengan Undang-undang Nomor 17 Tahun 2008 tentang Pelayaran. Polemik yang terjadi pada perusahaan tersebut disaat PT Pelindo II mendirikan beberapa anak perusahaan yang bergerak dalam bidang usaha jasa logistik yang akan bersaing dengan perusahaan swasta lain di bidang jasa kepelabuhan Tanjung Priok yang sudah lama berkecimpung dalam usaha tersebut.Permasalahannya adalah apakah monopoli oleh BUMN dibenarkan menurut persaingan usaha Indonesia dan apakah monopoli oleh PT Pelindo II dan anak-anak perusahaannya pada jasa kepelabuhan Tanjung Priok dapat dibenarkan menurut hukum persaingan usaha.

---

State-Owned Enterprises and other institutions established or designated by the government may be exempted from the Competition Law. Article 33 of the Constitution Indonesia of 1945 and Article 51 of Law No. 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition gives monopoly rights to the State-Owned Enterprises to hold a monopoly on the production and/or marketing of goods and/or services which control the lifes of most people in general and sectors of production which are important to the state. In this paper will be given an example of the State-Owned Enterprises, namely PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II (Persero) or PT Pelindo II in have gained a monopoly based on Law Number 21 Year 1992 on the Voyage which was then the monopoly is removed by Law No. 17 in 2008 on the Voyage.

Polemic that occurred at the company while PT Pelindo II established several subsidiary companies engaged in the business of logistics services that will compete with other private companies in the field of Tanjung Priok port service that has long been in the business. The problem is whether the monopoly by the State-Owned Enterprises is justified by the Indonesian competition and whether the monopoly by PT Pelindo II and its subsidiary companies at Tanjung Priok port service can be justified under competition law."

"ABSTRAKAir adalah suatu objek yang sangat vital untuk kelangsungan hidup manusia terutama air minum. Air minum merupakan suatu produk yang sangat menjanjikan untuk memperoleh keuntungan maksimum terutama di lokasi tertentu seperti pelabuhan udara dan laut, oleh karena air minum merupakan objek vital terutama di bisnis kepelabuhan maka berdasarkan Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 69 Tahun 2001 tentang Kepelabuhan salah satu fasilitas penunjang yang diberikan oleh pihak pelabuhan adalah instalasi air bersih. Dalam upaya memberikan fasilitas penunjang tersebut tentu saja bukan pihak pelabuhan sendiri yang menyediakan air minum akan tetapi pihak pemasok air minum, sehingga harus ada hubungan tiga pihak di pelabuhan Laut Tanjung Perak Surabaya yaitu pihak kapal baik domestik maupun asing sebagai konsumen, pihak pelabuhan yaitu PT. Pelindo III sebagai perantara, dan pelaku usaha pemasok air yaitu PT. SMC, PDAM dan ALAS yang terdiri atas enam pelaku usaha pemasok air. Air minum yang didistribusikan kepelabuhan tentunya harus memiliki standar tinggi untuk di konsumsi dan harus memadai bagi setiap kebutuhan kapal yang berlabuh. PT. Pelindo III dapat melakukan kerjasama dengan beberapa pemasok air dalam hal pemenuhan kebutuhan air minum dan dengan semakin banyak pelaku usaha, masing-masing akan bersaing untuk menunjukkan keunggulan dari produknya. Namun pelaku usaha pemasok air dapat menghilangkan persaingan di pasar yang bersangkutan dengan penunjukan langsung melalui surat nota Dinas yang dikeluarkan PT. Pelindo III, tentu saja kerjasama operasional tersebut bertentangan dengan prinsip persaingan sehat sebagaimana yang diatur dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999 tentan"