EFFECTIVENESS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT CASE BY THE CARTEL COMMISSION HONDA AND YAMAHA BASED ON JUSTICE PANCASILA

Juliana S. Ndolu,Douglas Napitupulu,Otih Handayani,Achmad Jumeri Pamungkas

doi:10.26623/jic.v5i1.1980

Abstract

This research aims to reconstruct the effectiveness of law enforcement by the Commission in a cartel case Honda and Yamaha justice based on Pancasila. The first reaserch discuss about the effectiveness of the Business Competition Supervisory Commission (KPPU) in law enforcement justice cartel cases Pancasila. Both reconstruct the article in Law No. 5 of 1999 concerning Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Competition for law enforcement effectiveness. This research is a doctrinal approach of legislation and research . Study shows the first enforcement by the Commission is not operating effectively. The imposition of administrative sanctions from the Commission do not have permanent legal force, where they opened a space for parties reported to object to the level of the Supreme Court (MA). The process to obtain permanent legal force very long whereas 73% of MA won the Commission's decision. Both to achieve effective enforcement, it is necessary to expand the authority of the Commission, which sanctions the administration carried out by the Commission are final or not opened space object. Agae ensure the Commission's decision is fair, then there needs to be a power-sharing within the Commission to establish the field of internal controls.

Highlights

The Commission as a supervisory agency of business competition has an important role in law enforcement1
Accordance with Law 5 of 1999 concerning Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Competition: That with a market share of more than 75 percent, the cartel is categorized as an oligopoly which means articles that used will vary with the implications on the implementation of different articles
The first mechanism for resolution of the problems in the Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 5 Year 1999 concerning Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Competition is not healthy, especially in Article 44 paragraph (4) and (5) can be interpreted that if businesses do not execute the decision of the Commission the Commission the verdict handed to investigators to do an investigation and eventually will follow the dispute resolution process such as litigation in general, which would be time consuming and lengthy process

Summary

Introduction

Which implies that the enforcement of competition law is to increase social welfare, prevent monopolistic practices and / or unfair competition, as well as provide sanctions against the offenders. The Commission as a supervisory agency of business competition has an important role in law enforcement. Over the last decade the number of Indonesia's middle class meningkat.Data World Bankmenyebut, the number of middle class in 2002 only 7% of the total population. In 2018 and increased to 50 million, or approximately 30% of the total population. Predicted Indonesian middle class will reach 143 million people or more than 50 percent of the total population in 20503, Central Statistics Agency (BPS), the middle class accounted for at least 45% of total domestic consumption.

Objectives

Findings

Discussion

Conclusion