Abstract
Fair competition law enforcement on business competition issues in Indonesia is very important to ensure the situation of conducive business competition and the enforcement in Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition, therefore the Commission for the Supervision of Business Competition of the Republic of Indonesia (KPPU) is actively involved in issuing related regulations with law enforcement procedures on business competition cases in Indonesia, which is through KPPU Regulation Number 1 of 2010 on Procedures for Case Handling. The judicial system of the business competition court in Indonesia can not be separated from the role of the KPPU as an institution that has the function of regulating and supervising competition behaviour, whether using prohibited activity patterns or agreements. In the context of law enforcement on business competition cases, KPPU has the authority from performing investigations to examining and deciding the competition cases in judicial institutions held by KPPU. Observing the main function of KPPU as a supervisory institution and situation regulator of the business competition in Indonesia, the authority of KPPU that perform investigations to judge business competition cases certainly is not an issue that needs to be debated. However, from the perspective of the justice system in Indonesia, KPPU’s authority in conducting investigations, examining, and deciding cases is a matter that needs to be studied more deeply, specifically regarding the guarantee of justice sense for business actors who are positioned as Reported Party. Keywords: Independence, Business Competition Court, Law Enforcement DOI: 10.7176/JLPG/102-07 Publication date: October 31 st 2020
Highlights
People are performing business activities to gain profit and income to meet their daily needs
The extraordinary of KPPU is clearly visible in its authority as regulated in Article 36 of Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition as stated below: 1. Receiving reports from the public and/or business actors regarding the alleged occurrence of monopolistic practices and/or unfair business competition; 2
Researches, investigation, prosecution, to decision making by trials, are all performed by organs within the KPPU institution
Summary
People are performing business activities to gain profit and income to meet their daily needs. The tasks and authorities of KPPU in detail is regulated in Article 35 of Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition, which includes: 1. The extraordinary of KPPU is clearly visible in its authority as regulated in Article 36 of Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition as stated below: 1. In business competition procedural law, there is “Examination Investigator” and “Prosecution Investigator” Both concepts is regulated in Article 2 Number (23) and (24) of KPPU Regulations Number 1 of 2019, as stated: Article 1 Number (23) “Examination Investigator is commission staff who is assigned to perform clarification, researches, and investigation activities.”.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
