Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
2026 Hak Cipta Milik Hukumonline.com
Produk Pilihan
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami Happy Rayna Stephany, Christina Desy
Fifteen years after the establishment of the Business Competition Supervisory Commission (Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha – “KPPU”), industry commentators believe that Indonesia needs an ad hoc court to prosecute and decide competition law cases.
Armen Amir, an antitrust law practitioner, formed his views for this proposal based on his observation on how cases are handled under the current system. Mr. Amir notes that all aspects of any single case are under the sole auspices of the KPPU. As a result, at times KPPU’s objectivity in prosecuting and deciding cases comes into question.
“Imagine this. KPPU investigators examine the case, analyze their own data, and then they will report the findings to their commissioners for further processing up until a decision is made. All the processes are run under one roof with similar people for the different stages and cases. How can this be objective?” said Mr. Amir to Hukumonline, during a business competition seminar at Universitas Indonesia, in Jakarta last Tuesday.
Mr. Amir made further reference to procedures for eradicating corruption as an example. In such cases there is the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) which prosecutes the corruptors, and there is an ad hoc court, the Corruption Court, which decides the case. According to Mr. Amir, this structure better provides for objectivity in deciding cases.
Regarding costs for any additional infrastructure, Mr. Amir stated that it is inevitable costs will arise. He asserts that it is counterproductive to tighten budgets if this results in poor decisions.
“It is a juridical consequence. There is an ad hoc court for the tax tribunal, and for the KPK. They can have it. Tightening the budget becomes unreasonable if it results in a non-objective system. On the contrary, such circumstances may actually end up costing more,” argues Mr. Amir.
Additionally, Mr. Amir also emphasizes the importance of establishing a business competition ethics council. Amongst others, the council’s duties should include analyzing and evaluating the KPPU’s performance.
“Look at it now. Where do we go to complain against the KPPU?” was another question raised by Mr. Amir.
Mr. Amir said that the council can be established under a government regulation which can set out the council’s election procedures, duties and authorities, and the requirements to file a complaint against the KPPU. Most importantly, the council must not be comprised of figures from political parties. Mr. Amir further suggests it is better for the council to consist of academics and practitioners.
A different line of thinking, however, has comes from Kurnia Toha, a business competition law expert. He says that the current KPPU system is commonly practiced in many other countries. Mr. Toha further added, however, that this does not mean Indonesia must necessarily rely on such standards. He commented that if there is a need to change the system, then it should be changed.
(hot/kc)
Happy Rayna Stephany, Christina Desy
Fifteen years after the establishment of the Business Competition Supervisory Commission (Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha – “KPPU”), industry commentators believe that Indonesia needs an ad hoc court to prosecute and decide competition law cases.
Armen Amir, an antitrust law practitioner, formed his views for this proposal based on his observation on how cases are handled under the current system. Mr. Amir notes that all aspects of any single case are under the sole auspices of the KPPU. As a result, at times KPPU’s objectivity in prosecuting and deciding cases comes into question.
“Imagine this. KPPU investigators examine the case, analyze their own data, and then they will report the findings to their commissioners for further processing up until a decision is made. All the processes are run under one roof with similar people for the different stages and cases. How can this be objective?” said Mr. Amir to Hukumonline, during a business competition seminar at Universitas Indonesia, in Jakarta last Tuesday.
Mr. Amir made further reference to procedures for eradicating corruption as an example. In such cases there is the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) which prosecutes the corruptors, and there is an ad hoc court, the Corruption Court, which decides the case. According to Mr. Amir, this structure better provides for objectivity in deciding cases.
Regarding costs for any additional infrastructure, Mr. Amir stated that it is inevitable costs will arise. He asserts that it is counterproductive to tighten budgets if this results in poor decisions.
“It is a juridical consequence. There is an ad hoc court for the tax tribunal, and for the KPK. They can have it. Tightening the budget becomes unreasonable if it results in a non-objective system. On the contrary, such circumstances may actually end up costing more,” argues Mr. Amir.
Additionally, Mr. Amir also emphasizes the importance of establishing a business competition ethics council. Amongst others, the council’s duties should include analyzing and evaluating the KPPU’s performance.
“Look at it now. Where do we go to complain against the KPPU?” was another question raised by Mr. Amir.
Mr. Amir said that the council can be established under a government regulation which can set out the council’s election procedures, duties and authorities, and the requirements to file a complaint against the KPPU. Most importantly, the council must not be comprised of figures from political parties. Mr. Amir further suggests it is better for the council to consist of academics and practitioners.
A different line of thinking, however, has comes from Kurnia Toha, a business competition law expert. He says that the current KPPU system is commonly practiced in many other countries. Mr. Toha further added, however, that this does not mean Indonesia must necessarily rely on such standards. He commented that if there is a need to change the system, then it should be changed.
(hot/kc)