An Analysis Towards The Term "Agreement" Under Article 5 Law No.5 Year 1999 Concerning The Ban on Monopolistic Practices And Unfair Business Competition And Its Relation to Cartel Practices In Indonesia In Case Study: (KPPU Decision No.08/KPPU- I/2014 Concerning Tire Cartel)

MUHAMMAD ELDWIN ISLAMEY , Dr. Paripurna P. Sugarda, S.H., M.Hum., LL.M.

2017 | Skripsi | S1 ILMU HUKUM

Krisis ekonomi yang melanda Indonesia sejak lama menciptakan situasi yang tidak kondusif bagi praktik kartel. Seiring dengan memburuknya situasi perekonomian, semua pelaku bisnis harus bersaing ketat untuk mendapatkan pangsa pasar yang jumlahnya jauh berkurang. Semua bentuk kesepakatan mengenai kartel atau perjanjian horizontal telah kehilangan keefektifannya. Banyak pelaku bisnis yang terlibat tidak lagi patuh dan telah melanggar sebagian besar kesepakatan tersebut. Di saat yang bersamaan, Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999 tentang Larangan Praktek Monopoli dan Persaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat "UU Anti Monopoli" mulai diterapkan secara efektif, sosialisasi dan penanganan kasus pun diprakarsai seiring lahirnya undang-undang tersebut. Namun, pengalaman mengatakan bahwa KPPU menghadapi rintangan serius untuk menentukan pelanggaran Undang-undang Anti Monopoli. Salah satu di antaranya adalah kemungkinan untuk menggunakan bukti tidak langsung dalam tahap pembuktian. Sementara banyak perusahaan besar terlibat dalam praktik kartel di Indonesia, menemukan bukti nyata hampir tidak mungkin dilakukan oleh KPPU, sehingga sangat menarik perhatian para praktisi dan akademisi. Penelitian hukum ini dilakukan melalui pendekatan normative, dengan menggunakan studi pustaka untuk menjawab permasalahan hukum, di mana penulis menggunakan buku, jurnal, artikel dan sumber-sumber lain yang mendukung penilitan hukum ini, di bidang persaingan usaha khususnya dalam konteks praktik perjanjian penetapan harga dan kartel. Analisis utama penelitian hukum ini didasarkan pada penggunaan risalah rapat yang diadakan oleh Asosiasi Produsen Ban Indonesia (APBI) antara tahun 2009 dan 2012 yang membuktikan bahwa 6 produsen ban terlibat dalam praktik Kartel, berdasarkan Keputusan KPPU No. .08 / KPPU-I / 2014, risalah rapat dianggap sebagai perjanjian yang sebagaimana diatur dalam pasal 1 angka 7 UU Persaingan Usaha. Namun, terdapat pertanyaan apakah risalah rapat dapat dianggap sebagai sebuah perjanjian dengan mengacu pada karakteristik serta unsur-unsur perjanjian yang diatur tidak hanya dalam UU Anti Monopoli Indonesia tetapi juga dalam KUH Perdata.

The economic crisis that plagued Indonesia for a long time created a situation which was not conducive to cartel practices. As the economy was sliding into a further abyss, all business players had to compete fiercely in order to get a share of the much-reduced market pie. All forms of agreements concerning cartels or horizontal agreements have lost their effectiveness. Many of the business players involved are no longer loyal and have violated most of those agreements. By the same token, as Law No. 5 The year 1999 concerning The Ban on Monopolistic Practices And Unfair Business Competition "Anti-Monopoly Law" began to be effectively implemented, many forms of socialization and case-handling have been initiated by the agency. However, past experiences tell that KPPU faced serious hurdles to determine a violation of Competition Law. One amongst all is the likelihood to use circumstantial evidence within the evidentiary stage. While numerous big companies involve in the cartel practices in Indonesia, discovering concrete evidence is hardly probable for KPPU, thereby attracting practitioners and academicians’ main concern. This legal research is conducted through a normative approach, using library research in order to answer the legal problems, where the author uses books, journals, articles and other sources that support this legal research, in the field of Anti-Monopoly Law particularly in the context of Price fixing and Cartel practices. The main analysis of this thesis is heavily based on the usage of the minutes of meetings held by the Indonesia Tire Manufacturers Association (ITMA) between 2009 and 2012 evidencing that 6 tire manufacturers were actively involved in the Cartel practices, for based on KPPU Decision No.08/KPPU-I/2014, minutes of meetings are considered as an agreement which falls under article 1 Point 7 Competition Law. However, there is an issue on whether or not minutes of meeting can be considered as an agreement by looking to the nature of an agreement which is regulated not only in Indonesia Anti-Monopoly Law but also in Indonesian Civil Code.

Kata Kunci : Tire Cartel, Price Fixing Agreement, Cartel, Business Competition Supervisory Commission,Kartel Ban, Perjanjian Penetapan Harga, Kartel, Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha