Article Sidebar

Submitted
August 31, 2021
Accepted
December 13, 2021
Published
December 21, 2021
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 242 Download : 248

Main Article Content

Abstract

Private enforcement in business competition law enforcement has several weaknesses rendering it sub-optimal in its compensation function. This article proposes a reformulation of business competition law enforcement based on a hybrid model for enhancing private law. This article uses a normative method with laws and regulation, cases, and a conceptual approach: law materials in the form of laws and regulations and Business Competition Supervisory Commission and court judgements are analyzed using hybrid theory so the weaknesses of business competition law enforcement can be identified, then, the result of a reformation proposal can be obtained by evaluating the result of analysis which are presented argumentatively. The result of this research study shows that a privately triggered public enforcement pattern which is implemented in private enforcement cannot work as compensation function optimally. The weakness in regulating private enforcement has created many obstacles for the appellant of trade damage. It is necessary to reformulate the business competition law enforcement in the future by enhancing private enforcement. The enforcement is conducted by facilitating the claimants with diverse features which ease them to get compensation for the trade damage they suffer.

Keywords: Private enforcement; public enforcement; hybrid modeling; competition law

Reformulasi Penegakan Hukum Persaingan Usaha Berbasis Model Hibrida

Abstrak

Penegakan hukum perdata dalam penegakan hukum persaingan usaha memiliki beberapa kelemahan sehingga fungsi kompensasinya kurang optimal. Artikel ini mengusulkan reformulasi penegakan hukum persaingan usaha berdasarkan model hibrida untuk menyempurnakan hukum perdata. Artikel ini menggunakan metode normatif dengan pendekatan peraturan perundang-undangan, kasus, dan konseptual: bahan hukum berupa peraturan perundang-undangan dan peraturan Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha serta putusan pengadilan dianalisis menggunakan teori hibrida sehingga kelemahan penegakan hukum persaingan usaha dapat diidentifikasi, maka, hasil usulan reformasi dapat diperoleh dengan mengevaluasi hasil analisis yang disajikan secara argumentatif. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa pola penegakan publik yang dipicu oleh hal-hal keperdataan yang diterapkan dalam penegakan hukum perdata tidak dapat memberikan fungsi kompensasi secara optimal. Kelemahan dalam mengatur penegakan hukum perdata telah menciptakan banyak hambatan bagi pemohon gugatan kerugian dalam hubungan keperdataan. Ke depan, perlu dirumuskan kembali penegakan hukum persaingan usaha dengan meningkatkan penegakan hukum perdata. Penegakan tersebut dilakukan dengan memfasilitasi penggugat dengan beragam fitur yang memudahkan mereka untuk mendapatkan kompensasi atas kerugian yang mereka derita.

Kata Kunci: Penegakan privat; penegakan publik; model hibrida; hukum persaingan usaha

Keywords

Private enforcement public enforcement hybrid modeling competition law

Article Details

How to Cite
Habibi, H. (2021). Reformulation Of Business Competition Law Enforcement Based On A Hybrid Model. Prophetic Law Review, 3(2), 131–148. https://doi.org/10.20885/PLR.vol3.iss2.art2
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

  1. Indonesian Legislations
  2. Law No. 5 of 1999 on Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition.
  3. Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation.
  4. Government Regulation No. 44 of 2021 on the Implementation of the Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition.
  5. The Business Competition Supervisory Commission Regulation No. 2 of 2021 on the Guidance of Fine Sanction Imposition for Performing Monopoly and Unfair Business Competition Practice.
  6. The Business Competition Supervisory Commission Regulation No. 1 of 2019 on the Procedure of Handling Cases related to Monopoly and Unfair Business Competition Practice.
  7. The Business Competition Supervisory Commission Regulation No. 1 of 2010 on the Procedure of Handling Cases.
  8. The Business Competition Supervisory Commission Regulation No. 4 of 2009 on the Guidance of Administrative Action in Accordance with the Provision in Article 47 of Law No. 5 of 1999 on Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition.
  9. Case
  10. The Case of Donggi-Senoro Project Beauty Contest Process [2010] Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha No.35/ KPPU I/ 2010.
  11. The Case of Tender for Procurement of Health Equipment at the Department of Health and Social Welfare, Natuna Regency, Riau Island, 2007 Financial Year [2008] Komisi pengawas Persaingan Usaha No.30/KPPU-L/2008.
  12. The Case of Fuel Surcharge Pricing in The Domestic Aviation Services Industry [2009] Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha No.25/KPPU-I/2009.
  13. PT Pertamina (Persero) vs The Business Competition Supervisory Commission [2011] Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Pusat No.34/PDT.G/ KPPU/2011/ PN.JKT.PST.
  14. The Case of SMS Cartel [2007] Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha No.26/KPPU-L/2007.
  15. The Case of Alleged Violations of Article 5 (1) of L Law No. 5 of 1999 on Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition in the 110-125 Cc Automatic Scooter Motorcycle Industry in Indonesia [2016] Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha No.4/KPPU-I/2016.
  16. The Case of Discrimination of Gas Distribution by the Pertamina [2006] Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha No.21/KPPU-L/2005.
  17. The Case of Clean Water Management in Batam Island [2008] Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha No.11/KPPU-L/2008.
  18. The Case of Class Action Lawsuit on Automatic Motor Cartel [2019] Pengadilan Negri Jakarta Pusat No.526/Pdt.G/2019/PN.Jkt.Pst.
  19. The Case of Alleged Violations by the Tamasek Business Group [2007] Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha No.07/KPPU-L/2007.
  20. The Case of the Broadcasting Right Barclays Premier League (English Mayor League) Season 2007-2010 [2008] Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha No.03/KPPU-L/2008.
  21. Zenith Radio Corp v Hazeltine Research [1971] United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 401 US 321.
  22. European Union Legal Source
  23. Directive 2014/104/EE of The European Parliament and of The Council of 26 November 2014 on certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union [2014] OJ L349/1.
  24. Books
  25. Adi Nugroho S, Class Action Dan Perbandingannya Dengan Negara Lain (Kencana Prenada Media 2010).
  26. Foer A and Cuneo J, ‘Toward an Effective System of Private Enforcement’ in Albert Foer and Jonathan Cuneo (eds.), The International Handbook on Private Enforcement of Competition Law (Edward Elgar Publishing 2010).
  27. Journal and Other Articles
  28. Barker K, ‘Modelling Public and Private Enforcement: The Rationality of Hybridity’ (2018) 37(1) The University of Queensland Law Journal 9.
  29. Caro de Sousa P, ‘Identifying the Building Blocks of Private Competition Enforcement’ (2019) 2 CPI Antitrust Chronicle 15.
  30. Christybella Wijaya C and others, ‘Penegakan Hukum Persaingan Usaha di Indonesia Melalui Harmonisasi Public Enforcement dan Private Enforcement’ XX (3) (2021) Law Review 342.
  31. Flores M and Rivera A, ‘Antitrust Damages Claims: Is Mexico in the Right Path?’ (2016) 4 CPI Antitrust Chronicle 45.
  32. H Barnett K, ‘Towards Optimal Enforcement’ (2019) 72(4) Vanderbilt Law Review 127.
  33. Hüschelrath K and Peyer S, ‘Public and Private Enforcement of Competition Law: A Differentiated Approach’ (2013) 36 World Competition Law and Economics Review 585.
  34. Natasya Sirait N, ‘The Development and Progress of Competition Law in Indonesia’ (2009) 54 The Antitrust Bulletin 15.
  35. Sant’Ambrogio M, ‘Private Enforcement in Administrative Courts’ (2019) 72(2) Vanderbilt Law Review 425.
  36. SM Pasaribu M, ‘Challenges of Indonesian Competition Law and Some Suggestions for Improvement’ (2015) ERIA Discussion Paper Series.
  37. Sugarda P and Rifky Wicaksono M, ‘Power to The People: Enhancing Competition Law Enforcement in Indonesia Through Private Enforcement’ (2019) 26(2) Asia Pacific Law Review 127.
  38. Reports
  39. Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs Competition Committee, Relationship Between Public and Private Antitrust Enforcement (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development 2015).
  40. Website
  41. ‘Database Putusan KPPU’ <http://putusan.kppu.go.id/simper/menu/> accessed 21 August 2021.
  42. Novia Heriani F, '4 Poin Penting terkait Penegakan Hukum Persaingan Usaha dalam UU Cipta Kerja' (hukumonline, 5 November 2020) <https://hukumonline.com/berita/baca/lt5fa38acac9fab/4-poin-penting-terkait-penegakan-hukum-persaingan-usaha-dalam-uu-cipta-kerja/?page=1> accessed 21 September 2021.
  43. Nurul Ulya F, ‘KPPU: Perkara Perlindungan Konsumen Korban Kartel Yamaha-Honda Silakan Dilanjutkan Pihak Lain’ (Kompas, 6 May 2019) <https://money.kompas.com/read/2019/05/06/184100526/kppu-perkara-perlindungan-konsumen-korban-kartel-yamaha-honda-silakan> accessed 12 September 2021.