Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"ABSTRACTA majority of business competition violation in Indonesia based on the reports and KPPU decisions published on the KPPU website are regarding tender conspiracy. Rule of Reason is the principle used to prove conspiracy in tenders in Indonesia. The examination does not focus only on the conduct by the business actors but also the impact of such action. In the United States of America, conspiracy in tenders are considered as practices that should be proven by the principle of Per Se Illegal. This thesis analyzes the implementation of the principle of Rule of Reason in Indonesia and whether or not it is suitable for Indonesia.

---

ABSTRAKMaraknya pelanggaran terhadap kompetisi hukum di Indonesia, khususnya dalam kasus konspirasi tender dapat dilihat dari banyaknya laporan yang didapat dapat di lihat dari halaman internet KPPU. di Indonesia, Rule of Reason adalah pendekatan yang digunakan untuk membuktikan konspirasi. Pembuktian tidak hanya terfokus pada adanya adanya tindakan namun juga fokus pada akibat dari perbuatan tersebut. Di Amerika, konspirasi dibuktikan dengan Per Se Illegal. Skripsi ini menganalisa apakah sudah tepat dan pantas penerapan Rule of Reason di Indonesia. "

"[ABSTRAKDari semua praktik bisnis yang tidak sehat, Kartel dipersepsikan sebagai bentukpaling berbahaya dari tidakan persaingan usaha karena para pelakunya sepakatmelakukan konspirasi mengenai hal-hal yang bersifat sangat pokok dalam suatutransaksi bisnis. Kartel akan menyebabkan kerugian bagi konsumen. Sifatkerahasiaan kartel menjadi hambatan terbesar bagi otoritas persaingan usahauntuk membuktikkan eksistensi kartel, Indonesia juga mengalami hal tersebut.Untuk sejumlah alasan tersebut, beberapa negara di Barat menggunakanpendekatan per se illegal. Per se illegal memiliki beberapa keunggulandibanding rule of reason dalam mengungkap keberadaan kartel. Tesis inimembahas mengenai pengaturan penerapan pendekatan per se illegal dalamAnti Monopoly Act (AMA) di Jepang dan The Regulation of Monopolies andFair Trade Act (FTA) di Korea Selatan serta kemungkinan penerapanpendekatan per se illegal dalam hukum persaingan di Indonesia. Penelitian iniadalah penelitian yuridis normatif yang menggunakan metode pendekatanperundang-undangan dan pendekatan perbandingan. Hasil penelitianmenyarankan untuk menerapkan ketentuan mengenai pendekatan per se illegalmelalui amandemen Undang-undang Nomor 5 tahun 1999 sejalan dengan itumenambahkan kewenangan KPPU terkait penggeledahan.

---

ABSTRACTFrom of all the unfair business practices, Cartel are perceived as the the mostdangerous from of competitive business, because the principals agreed theconspiracy on matters that are staples in a business transaction. Cartel wouldcause harm to consumers. The confindential nature of cartel has been the biggestobstacle for the Competition authority?s effort to prove the existence of the cartel,Indonesia also experienced it. From some reasons, numerous jurisdictions haveadopted approach of per se illegal. Per se illegal has several advantages comparedto a rule of reason in expose the existence of cartel. This study discussed the ruleon Anti Monopoly Act (AMA) in Japan and The Regulation of Monopolies andFair Trade Act (FTA) in South Korea also addressed the possibility applicationPer Se illegal approach in Indonesia. The study used juridical-normative researchmethod which emphasis on the use of statute and comparative approach. Theresult suggest to implement provisions concerning Per Se Illegal approach troughamandement Law Number 5 year 1999 and in line with the added KPPU?sauthority related search and seizure.;From of all the unfair business practices, Cartel are perceived as the the mostdangerous from of competitive business, because the principals agreed theconspiracy on matters that are staples in a business transaction. Cartel wouldcause harm to consumers. The confindential nature of cartel has been the biggestobstacle for the Competition authority?s effort to prove the existence of the cartel,Indonesia also experienced it. From some reasons, numerous jurisdictions haveadopted approach of per se illegal. Per se illegal has several advantages comparedto a rule of reason in expose the existence of cartel. This study discussed the ruleon Anti Monopoly Act (AMA) in Japan and The Regulation of Monopolies andFair Trade Act (FTA) in South Korea also addressed the possibility applicationPer Se illegal approach in Indonesia. The study used juridical-normative researchmethod which emphasis on the use of statute and comparative approach. Theresult suggest to implement provisions concerning Per Se Illegal approach troughamandement Law Number 5 year 1999 and in line with the added KPPU?sauthority related search and seizure.;From of all the unfair business practices, Cartel are perceived as the the mostdangerous from of competitive business, because the principals agreed theconspiracy on matters that are staples in a business transaction. Cartel wouldcause harm to consumers. The confindential nature of cartel has been the biggestobstacle for the Competition authority?s effort to prove the existence of the cartel,Indonesia also experienced it. From some reasons, numerous jurisdictions haveadopted approach of per se illegal. Per se illegal has several advantages comparedto a rule of reason in expose the existence of cartel. This study discussed the ruleon Anti Monopoly Act (AMA) in Japan and The Regulation of Monopolies andFair Trade Act (FTA) in South Korea also addressed the possibility applicationPer Se illegal approach in Indonesia. The study used juridical-normative researchmethod which emphasis on the use of statute and comparative approach. Theresult suggest to implement provisions concerning Per Se Illegal approach troughamandement Law Number 5 year 1999 and in line with the added KPPU?sauthority related search and seizure.;From of all the unfair business practices, Cartel are perceived as the the mostdangerous from of competitive business, because the principals agreed theconspiracy on matters that are staples in a business transaction. Cartel wouldcause harm to consumers. The confindential nature of cartel has been the biggestobstacle for the Competition authority?s effort to prove the existence of the cartel,Indonesia also experienced it. From some reasons, numerous jurisdictions haveadopted approach of per se illegal. Per se illegal has several advantages comparedto a rule of reason in expose the existence of cartel. This study discussed the ruleon Anti Monopoly Act (AMA) in Japan and The Regulation of Monopolies andFair Trade Act (FTA) in South Korea also addressed the possibility applicationPer Se illegal approach in Indonesia. The study used juridical-normative researchmethod which emphasis on the use of statute and comparative approach. Theresult suggest to implement provisions concerning Per Se Illegal approach troughamandement Law Number 5 year 1999 and in line with the added KPPU?sauthority related search and seizure.;From of all the unfair business practices, Cartel are perceived as the the mostdangerous from of competitive business, because the principals agreed theconspiracy on matters that are staples in a business transaction. Cartel wouldcause harm to consumers. The confindential nature of cartel has been the biggestobstacle for the Competition authority?s effort to prove the existence of the cartel,Indonesia also experienced it. From some reasons, numerous jurisdictions haveadopted approach of per se illegal. Per se illegal has several advantages comparedto a rule of reason in expose the existence of cartel. This study discussed the ruleon Anti Monopoly Act (AMA) in Japan and The Regulation of Monopolies andFair Trade Act (FTA) in South Korea also addressed the possibility applicationPer Se illegal approach in Indonesia. The study used juridical-normative researchmethod which emphasis on the use of statute and comparative approach. Theresult suggest to implement provisions concerning Per Se Illegal approach troughamandement Law Number 5 year 1999 and in line with the added KPPU?sauthority related search and seizure., From of all the unfair business practices, Cartel are perceived as the the mostdangerous from of competitive business, because the principals agreed theconspiracy on matters that are staples in a business transaction. Cartel wouldcause harm to consumers. The confindential nature of cartel has been the biggestobstacle for the Competition authority’s effort to prove the existence of the cartel,Indonesia also experienced it. From some reasons, numerous jurisdictions haveadopted approach of per se illegal. Per se illegal has several advantages comparedto a rule of reason in expose the existence of cartel. This study discussed the ruleon Anti Monopoly Act (AMA) in Japan and The Regulation of Monopolies andFair Trade Act (FTA) in South Korea also addressed the possibility applicationPer Se illegal approach in Indonesia. The study used juridical-normative researchmethod which emphasis on the use of statute and comparative approach. Theresult suggest to implement provisions concerning Per Se Illegal approach troughamandement Law Number 5 year 1999 and in line with the added KPPU’sauthority related search and seizure.]"

"Persekongkolan tender dianggap sebagai bentuk pelanggaran berat dalam ranah hukum persaingan usaha karena dapat memberikan dampak negatif secara langsung bagi perekonomian suatu negara. Penelitian tesis ini bertujuan untuk memberikan penjelasan mengenai larangan persekongkolan tender beserta pendekatan hukum yang dipakai dalam menyelesaikan perkara persekongkolan tender berdasarkan hukum persaingan usaha di Indonesia dan Korea Selatan. Walaupun pendekatan hukum yang dipakai oleh Indonesia dan Korea Selatan berbeda, dimana Indonesia menggunakan pendeketan rule of reason dan Korea Selatan menggunakan pendekatan per se illegal, namun digunakannya kedua konsep pendekatan hukum tersebut memiliki tujuan yang sama yaitu untuk menyelesaikan perkara persekongkolan tender dengan melihat dampak atau kerugian yang ditimbulkan dari tindakan tersebut. Metode penelitian yang digunakan dalam penelitian tesis ini adalah metode Yuridis Normatif yang akan mengacu pada norma-norma hukum yang terdapat dalam peraturan perundang-undangan, putusan pengadilan yang berkaitan, dan studi komparatif antara Indonesia dan Korea Selatan. Hasil penelitian tesis ini menyarankan agar KPPU lebih memahami lagi konsep pendekatan rule of reason yang digunakan untuk menyelesaikan perkara persekongkolan tender sehingga kepastian hukum dan keadilan dapat tercapai.

---

Bid rigging is considered as a form of serious violation in the realm of competition law because it can cause a direct negative impact for the nation rsquo s economy. This thesis research aims to provide an explanation of the prohibition of bid rigging along with the used of legal approach to solve bid rigging cases under the competition law in Indonesia and South Korea. Although there is a difference between the used legal approach by Indonesia and South Korea, in which Indonesia uses rule of reason approch while South Korea uses per se illegal approach but the use of both legal approach concepts has the same goal that is to be able to solve the bid rigging case by paying attention to the negative impact or losses due to these act. This thesis is using legal normative method which will refer to the legal norms contained in the relevant regulations, any related court decicions and comparative study between Indonesia and South Korea. The result of this thesis research suggest that KPPU should be able to understand more about the concept of rule of reason approach, so that by using this approach to solve the bid rigging case, legal certainty and justice will be achieved."

"Skripsi ini membahas bagaimana pendekatan yang digunakan KPPU dan otoritas penegakan hukum persaingan usaha lainnya dalam memeriksa perkara-perkara yang berkaitan dengan ketentuan Pasal 27 Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian yuridis-normatif menggunakan data sekunder. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa penggunaan pendekatan yang berbeda dalam penerapan Pasal 27 Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999 dapat menghasilkan putusan yang berbeda. Pendekatan yang lebih tepat untuk diterapkan adalah Rule of Reason. Di dalam menggunakan pendekatan Rule of Reason, KPPU dan otoritas penegakan hukum persaingan usaha lainnya perlu membuktikan unsur tambahan. Pertama, unsur perilaku penyalahgunaan posisi dominan yang dibuktikan dengan mengacu pada ketentuan Pasal 25 ayat (1) Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999 atau pada tindakan anti-persaingan lainnya. Kedua, unsur dampak negatif terhadap persaingan yang dilakukan dengan menilai pengaruh pemilikan saham mayoritas atau pendirian beberapa perusahaan sejenis terhadap: (a) tingkat kompetisi di pasar bersangkutan; (b) price leadership; (c) excessive pricing; (d) excessive profit; dan (e) kerugian konsumen. ......This Thesis answers the problem of how is the approach that KPPU and other antitrust law authorities used in examining cases involving Article 27 Law Number 5 Year 1999. This research is a normative legal research using secondary data. The result of this research shows that applying different approaches in cases involving Article 27 Law Number 5 Year 1999 could resulting in different decision. Rule of Reason is the more suitable approach to be applied in such cases. In applying Rule of Reason, KPPU and other antitrust law authorities have to prove additional factors. First, the abuse of dominant position, be evidenced by referred to Article 25 (1) Law Number 5 Year 1999 or other anti-competition acts. Second, negative impact on competition in the relevant market, be evidenced by judging the effect of majority shareholding or establishment of similar companies towards: (a) competitiveness in the relevant market; (b) price leadership; (c) excessive pricing; (d) excessive profit; and (e) consumers loss."

"Indonesia mengalami krisis ekonomi pada tahun 1998 dan untuk mengatasi krisis ekonomi tersebut, Pemerintah Indonesia meminta bantuan keuangan kepada IMF (International Monetery Fund). IMF menyetujui pemberian bantuan keuangan sebanyak US$ 43 Miliar dengan syarat, Indonesia melaksanakan reformasi sistem ekonomi dan hukum ekonomi melalui Undang-Undang Anti Monopoli. Maka pada tanggal 5 Maret 1999 Presiden mengesahkan Undang-Undang No.5 Tahun 1999 tentang Larangan Praktek Monopoli dan Persaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat dengan tujuan yang ingin dicapai adalah: (1) Menjaga kepentingan umum dan meningkatkan efisiensi ekonomi nasional sebagai salah satu upaya untuk meningkatkan kesejahteraan rakyat; (2) Mewujudkan iklim usaha yang kondusif melalui pengaturan persaingan usaha yang sehat sehingga menjamin adanya kepastian kesempatan berusaha yang sama bagi pelaku usaha besar, pelaku usaha menengah dan pelaku usaha kecil; (3) Mencegah praktek monopoli dan atau persaingan usaha tidak sehat yang ditimbulkan oleh pelaku usaha; (4) Terciptanya efektivitas dan efisiensi dalam kegiatan usaha.Masalah yang dikaji adalah: (1) Bagaimanakah pendekatan per se illegal dan rule of reason dalam penerapan Undang-Undang Anti Monopoli; (2) Kegiatan-kegiatan apa Baja yang dilarang dilakukan oleh pelaku usaha berdasarkan UU No.5 Tahun 1999; (3) Bagaimanakah keputusan KPPU dalam kasus Perum Peruri dan PT. Pura Nusapersada.Metode yang digunakan adalah metode penelitian yuridis normatif yaitu penelitian hukum yang dilakukan dengan cara meneliti bahan pustaka atau data sekunder belaka.Dari hasil penelitian disimpulkan: (1) Pendekatan per se illegal adalah suatu tindakan dinyatakan melanggar'hukum tanpa perlu pembuktian apakah tindakan tersebut mempunyai dampak negatif terhadap persaingan atau tidak sedangkan pendekatan rule of reason adalah suatu tindakan, baru dapat dinyatakan melanggar hukum apabila tindakan tersebut dapat dibuktikan,-mempunyai dampak negatif terhadap persaingan; (2) Kegiatan-kegiatan yang dilarang adalah penyalahgunaan posisi dominan (abuse of dominant position), kartel (cartel) dan hambatan masuk (barrier to entry); (3) Keputusan KKPU adalah Perum Peruri dan PT. Pura Nusapersada terbukti secara sah dan menyakinkan melanggar Pasal 17 ayat (1) dan (2) huruf b UU No.5 Tahun 1999."

"Dalam pasal 15 ayat 2 Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999 bahwa perjanjian berikat (tying agreement) pada dasarnya bersifat per se illegal sehingga apabila dilihat adanya suatu tying agreement maka tanpa dibuktikan lebih lanjut serta dipetimbangan dampak maupun akibatnya maka tying agreement tersebut dikatakan telah melanggar hukum persaingan usaha. Dalam penelitian ini akan dilihat apakah hal tersebut sudah sesuai dengan hukum persaingan usaha melalui studi kasus putusan nomor 01/Pdt/KPPU/2015/PN,Jkt.Utr. Selain itu dalam penelitian ini akan diteliti apakah seseorang yang tidak mendengar/mengalami/melihat suatu peristiwa sendiri (saksi non fakta) dapat dijadikan sebagai alat bukti keterangan saksi (witness testimony) dalam pemeriksaan hukum persaingan usaha. ......In article 15 paragraph 2 of the Law number. 5 year 1999 that the tying agreement basically are per se illegal so that when viewed the presence of a tying agreement then without further evidenced as well as to consider impact or as a result of such agreement tying the then said to have violated the competition law effort. In this study it will be seen whether it is in compliance with the law through the business case study competition court decision number 01/Pdt/KPPU/2015/PN. Jkt. Utr. Therefore, in this study examined whether a person who is not an event listen/feel/see directly itself (witness the non facts) can serve as evidence of witnesses to testimony in the examination of competition law effort."

"Dalam hukum persaingan usaha dikenal dua pendekatan, yaitu per se dan rule of reason. Umumnya, pasal-pasal di UU Monopoli menggunakan salah satu dari pendekatan tersebut, namun ternyata terdapat pasal yang dapat diperiksa dengan keduanya, salah satunya adalah Pasal 15 ayat (2) tentang tying agreement. Kaidah ini dapat ditemukan dalam Peraturan KPPU No 5 Tahun 2011 tentang Pedoman Pasal 15, namun belum secara menyeluruh diaplikasikan. Jauh sebelum Indonesia, negara Amerika Serikat sebagai negara pelopor hukum persaingan usaha ternyata telah menerapkan dua pendekatan tersebut pada tying agreement lebih dulu, dan tampaknya lebih konsisten dalam membedakan antar kedua pendekatan tersebut. Tulisan ini menganalisis: (1) pengaturan tying agreement di Indonesia dan Amerika Serikat; dan (2) penerapan pendekatan per se dan rule of reason pada perkara tying agreement di Indonesia dan Amerika Serikat. Untuk menganalisis fenomena tersebut, tulisan ini menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif dengan studi perbandingan. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa pengaturan tying agreement di kedua negara tersebut dilandasi oleh model pengaturan dan instrumen pengubah yang berbeda, yaitu Indonesia pada UU Monopoli diikuti dengan perkembangan pada Peraturan KPPU tentang Pedoman Pasal 15, dan Amerika Serikat pada Sherman Act dan Clayton Act diikuti dengan perkembangan melalui presedens. Dalam penerapannya, hakim Amerika Serikat lebih konsisten memisahkan antara kedua pendekatan dibandingkan Majelis Komisi yang tidak secara menyeluruh menerapkan Peraturan KPPU tentang Pedoman Pasal 15. Maka, penting bagi Majelis Komisi untuk menerapkan pedoman tersebut secara menyeluruh, juga bagi KPPU untuk membentuk pedoman baru yang lebih tegas atau setidak-tidaknya mensosialisasikan pedoman yang sudah ada kepada masyarakat.......In antitrust law, there are two approaches, namely per se and rule of reason. Generally, articles in the Monopoly Law use one of these approaches, but there are articles that can be examined with both, one of which is Article 15 paragraph (2) on tying agreements. This provision can be found in KPPU Regulation No. 5/2011 on Article 15 Guidelines, but it has not been thoroughly applied. Long before Indonesia, USA as a pioneer of antitrust law has applied the two approaches to tying agreements and has been more consistent in distinguishing between them. This paper analyzes: (1) the regulation of tying agreements in Indonesia and USA; and (2) the application of per se and rule of reason approaches in tying agreement cases in Indonesia and USA. To analyze the phenomenon, this paper uses normative juridical research method with comparative study. The results show that the regulation of tying agreements in both countries is based on different regulatory models and changing instruments, Indonesia in Monopoly Law followed by developments in KPPU Regulation on Article 15 Guidelines, and USA in Sherman Act and Clayton Act followed by developments through precedence. In its application, USA judges are more consistent in separating between the two approaches than the Majelis Komisi which does not thoroughly apply the KPPU Regulation on Article 15 Guidelines. Therefore, it is important for Majelis Komisi to apply the guidelines thoroughly, for KPPU to establish new guidelines that are stricter or at least socialize the existing guidelines to the society."

"Pandemi Covid-19 tak hanya mempengaruhi keadaan sosial dan ekonomi, tapi juga kesehatan. Dari segi ekonomi, pandemi telah memperlambat pertumbuhan negara bahkan mungkin berdampak buruk bagi kesejahteraan warganya. Sesudah Covid-19 menyebar luas, rumah sakit (RS) terpaksa menawarkan layanan rapid test Covid-19 atau yang umum diketahui sebagai tes rapid dan real-time PCR atau polymerase chain reaction. Tingginya permintaan layanan tes Covid-19, mencakup tes PCR dan rapid, disebabkan oleh meningkatnya angka penularan Covid-19 di Indonesia. Namun, penyediaan layanan tes Covid-19 juga mengandung risiko persaingan usaha yang tidak sehat. Dugaan adanya tying-in agreement pada produk alat uji rapid, atau pada layanan uji rapid dan PCR yang dikemas bersama dalam paket layanan kesehatan atau paket kecepatan hasil diperoleh dan biaya yang di atas Harga Eceran Tertinggi (HET), memberikan menimbulkan kejadian ini. itu adalah batas yang ditetapkan pemerintah. Akibatnya, Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha (KPPU) memperketat pengawasannya. Berdasarkan hasil riset awal KPPU, persaingan bisnis yang tidak sehat dapat dipicu oleh bundling dalam biaya tes Covid-19 dan kecepatan tersedianya hasil tes. Berkaitan dengan fenomena tersebut, maka diperlukan pengaturan kegiatan tes Covid-19 yang ideal untuk ke depannya agar menjamin adanya kepastian hukum dan mengurangi adanya indikasi pelanggaran hukum kompetisi usaha yang tak sehat. Oleh sebab itu, Penulis ingin mengobservasi lebih dalam terkait permasalahan tersebut dengan menuangkan pada penelitian hukum ini.......The Covid-19 pandemic has affected social and economic conditions and health. From a financial perspective, the pandemic has slowed down the country's growth and may even have harmed the welfare of its citizens. After Covid-19 spread widely, hospitals were forced to offer Covid-19 rapid test services or what is commonly known as rapid and real-time PCR or polymerase chain reaction tests. The high demand for Covid-19 test services, including PCR and rapid tests, is caused by the increasing rate of Covid-19 transmission in Indonesia. However, the provision of Covid-19 test services also carries the risk of unfair business competition. Allegations of a tying-in agreement on rapid test kit products or on rapid and PCR test services that are packaged together in a health service package or package for the speed at which results are obtained, and costs above the Highest Retail Price (HET) give rise to this incident. That is the limit set by the government. As a result, the Business Competition Supervisory Commission (KPPU) has tightened its supervision. Based on the KPPU's initial research results, unhealthy business competition can be triggered by bundling in the cost of Covid-19 tests and the speed at which test results are available. In connection with this phenomenon, it is necessary to regulate ideal Covid-19 test activities in the future to guarantee legal certainty and reduce indications of unfair business competition law violations. Therefore, the author wants to make more profound observations regarding this problem by pouring them into this legal research."