Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Skripsi ini membahas mengenai penafsiran hukum Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha berkaitan dengan pembuktian kasus persekongkolan tender, unsur-unsur yang harus dibuktikan, alat-alat bukti yang digunakan termasuk mengenai penggunaan indikasi sebagai alat untuk membuktikan adanya persekongkolan tender dan penafsiran hukum Badan Peradilan sebagai bentuk upaya hukum keberatan atas Putusan KPPU khususnya mengenai pertimbangan tentang pembuktian. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian hukum yuridis normatif yang bersifat deskriptif. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa indikasi tidak dapat digunakan sebagai dasar yang dapat membuktikan adanya persekongkolan dalam tender, diperlukan alat bukti serta proses hukum acara lebih lanjut. Hal ini lah yang menjadi dasar pertimbangan Majelis Hakim Pengadilan Negeri Bengkulu pada Putusan No. 01/Pdt.Sus-KPPU/2014/Pn.Bgl yang memeriksa upaya keberatan atas putusan KPPU. Padahal, pada putusan tingat KPPU sebelumnya, Majelis Komisi memang menggunakan indikasi namun keberadaannya diperkuat bersama dengan alat bukti lain yang diatur dalam Pasal 42 UU No. 5 Tahun 1999. Penelitian ini menyarankan KPPU sebagai lembaga quasi yudisial yang memutus perkara persaingan usaha tetap harus berpedoman pada alat-alat bukti yang diatur pada UU No. 5 Tahun 1999, tetapi mengingat sulitnya menemukan pembuktian langsung apabila ada pembuktian hendak menggunakan indikasi saja atau indirect evidence perlu dibuatnya peraturan yang mengakui secara legal keberadaan hal tersebut dan dilakukan penyeragaman terhadap semua lembaga termasuk peradilan umum agar terjadi kepastian hukum dalam hal pembuktian.

---

The Research is about The Commission for The Supervision of Bussiness Competition KPPU 39 s law interpretation in relation to tender conspiracy case, things to prove, the evidence applies in the case including indication applies to prove the tender conspiracy and legal entity 39 s law interpretation as an objection of KPPU 39 s adjudication and about the judgement 39 s evidence in particular. This research is a descriptive normative judiricial. The result of this research shows that the indication can not be a fundamental that may prove tender conspiracy existence. It needs evidence and procedurial law process in further. This become the fundamental consideration to judge in Bengkulu District Court on verdict no. 01 pdt.sus KPPU 2014 Pn.BGL who investigate objection on KPPU 39 s verdict. Whereas, on the last KPPU 39 s verdict, The Commission applied indication but it gets along with evidence which on subsection 42 UU no.5 year 1999. This research suggest KPPU as a Quasi Judicial Institution who concludes the tender competition case to looks at the evidences which written on UU no.5 year 1999, but considering the difficulties on finding direct evidences, if there 39 s any evidence, it might use only the indication or indirect evidence. It needs to make a regulation which legally approving the existence and make a uniformity to all institution including General courts in order to build legal certainty on verification."

"Skripsi ini membahas mengenai kesamaan IP Address sebagai indikasi dalam perkara persekongkolan tender. Dengan diselenggarakannya e-government, kemudian melalui Peraturan Presiden Nomor 54 Tahun 2010 diatur bahwa pengadaan barang atau jasa diwajibkan dilakukan secara elektronik. Semakin berkembangnya teknologi dan informasi tentunya membawa proses pengadaan barang atau jasa ke dalam babak baru. Penggunaan sistem elektronik telah menciptakan suatu cara pandang baru yakni terjadi perubahan paradigma paper based menjadi electronic based. Oleh karenanya muncul pergeseran dan perluasan makna dari alat bukti yang digunakan dalam persidangan. Namun mengenai kesamaan IP Address sebagai salah satu indikasi persekongkolan tender tidak diatur dalam peraturan perundang-undangan manapun.

---

This thesis discusses about the similarities of IP Address as an indicator in a tender conspiracy case. In accordance with the implementation of an egovernment, Presidential Regulation Number 54 of 2010 regulates that the acquisition of goods or services must be carried out electronically. Further development of technology and informatics has without a doubt brought the process of acquiring goods or services to a new level. Utilization of electronic systems has created a new perspective, which is the paradigm shift from paper based to electronic based. As a result there has also been a shift and wider interpretation of evidence that can be submitted in court. However, IP Address similarities as an indication of tender conspiracy are not regulated in any laws or regulations."

"Kartel merupakan jenis perjanjian yang dilakukan oleh para pelaku usaha yang anti terhadap persaingan. Proses pembuktian adanya dugaan praktik perjanjian kartel diantara para pelaku usaha menjadi suatu masalah bagi KPPU dalam menyelesaikan perkara persaingan usaha tidak sehat, dan untuk menyimpulkan adanya perjanjian atau kesepakatan diperlukan adanya dukungan suatu bukti. Dalam perilaku kerja sama, bukti dapat dibagi menjadi dua jenis, yaitu: Direct Evidence dan Indirect Evidence Circumstantial Evidence . KPPU dipertanyakan dasar dalam menggunakan indirect evidence sebagai alat bukti. Tesis ini mengkaji dan membahas mengenai penggunaan indirect evidence khususnya bukti ekonomi dalam pembuktian perkara-perkara kartel dengan membandingkan Putusan KPPU Nomor 08/KPPU-I/2014, Putusan KPPU Nomor 02/KPPU-I/2016, dan Putusan KPPU 04/KPPU-I/2016. Penelitian ini adalah penulisan hukum yuridis normatif yang memusatkan perhatiannya pada kajian tentang peraturan perundang-undangan termasuk putusan pengadilan sebagai tolak acuan pembahasan. Hasil penelitian menyimpulkan indirect evidence khususnya bukti ekonomi dibutuhkan dalam pembuktian atas pelanggaran persaingan usaha, karena karakter perilaku di dunia usaha berbeda jenis maupun bentuknya. Dari ketiga putusan KPPU disebutkan di atas, bahwa terdapat dua 2 putusan yang dikuatkan oleh Pengadilan Negeri dan 1 satu putusan yang dibatalkan oleh Hakim Pengadilan Negeri. Hal tersebut menjelaskan bahwa penggunaan indirect evidence khususnya bukti ekonomi mampu membantu KPPU dalam mengungkapkan terjadinya kartel. Penulis menyarankan untuk menempatkan pasal terkait indirect evidence sebagai lsquo;bukti tersendiri rsquo; dalam amandemen Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999.

---

Cartel is a type of agreement by business actors who are anti of competition. The proofing process of the alleged practice of cartel agreement among business actors remains an issue for The Business Competition Supervisory Commission KPPU in solving unfair business competition cases, moreover, to conclude the existence of deal or agreement, the supporting evidence are needed. In cooperative behavior, the evidence can be divided into two types Direct Evidence and Indirect Evidence Circumstantial Evidence . The utilization of indirect evidence as an instrument of validation by KPPU is questionable. This thesis examines and discusses the use of indirect evidence, especially economic evidence in cartel cases by comparing KPPU Decision Number 08 KPPU I 2014, KPPU Decision Number 02 KPPU I 2016, and KPPU Decision Number 04 KPPU I 2016. This research is the writing of normative juridical law which focus its attention on the study of legislation including court decision as reference. The result of the research concludes that indirect evidence, especially economic evidence is needed in the verification of business competition violation, because the behavioral character in the world of business varies in types and forms. Of the three KPPU decisions mentioned, there are two 2 decisions enforced by the District Court and 1 one decision annulled by the District Court Judge. This explains that the use of indirect evidence, especially economic evidence, is able to assist KPPU in revealing the occurrence of cartel. The author suggests to put articles related to indirect evidence into ldquo separated evidence rdquo in the amendment of Act No. 5 of 1999."

"Skripsi ini membahas mengenai hukum acara pada persaingan usaha, alat bukti yang digunakan pada hukum acara persaingan usaha, pengertian tentang indirect evidence serta penggunaan indirect evidence untuk memutus perkara persaingan usaha. Termasuk upaya hukum yang dapat ditempuh pelaku usaha. Penelitian ini adalah penelitian kualitatif dengan penjabaran eksplanatoris. Penelitian ini dapat dijadikan landasan pemikiran untuk mengetahui mengenai sistem pembuktian pada hukum acara persaingan usaha, untuk mengetahui hubungan antara indirect evidence dengan alat bukti petunjuk, serta untuk mengetahui penggunaan indirect evidence di dalam prakteknya. Penelitian ini didasarkan pada Undang-undang No. 5 Tahun 2009 serta peraturan perundang-undangan terkait. Hasil penelitian menemukan bahwa untuk memutus perkara persaingan usaha, Majelis Komisi hanya menggunakan indirect evidence. Penelitian ini menyarankan bahwa indirect evidence harus digunakan bersama dengan satu alat bukti lain, serta agar diberikan definisi mengenai indirect evidence yang bisa dilakukan melalui Peraturan Komisi sehingga tidak menimbulkan multi tafsir.

---

This minithesis describes the business competition procedural law, evidence that can be use on business competition procedural law, the use of indirect evidence to bring in verdict business competition case, and also the relation of indirect evidence as a clue. This minithesis is qualitative research with explanatory explanation. This minithesis can be used as justification to know about authentication system on business competition procedural law. This research is based on the Act No. 5 of 1999 on Law Concerning Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition and related legislations. The results found that to resolve business competition case, the Commission only use indirect evidence. This research suggests that indirect evidence have to use together with other evidences, and also the definitions of indirect evidence have to be made which can be done by Commission Rule in order to avoid multiple interpretations."

"[Skripsi ini membahas mengenai putusan Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usahatentang kewajiban penggunaan alat bongkar muat Gantry Luffing Crane. Dalamrangka meningkatkan efisiensi dan produktivitas bongkar muat di lingkunganPelabuhan Tanjung Priok, Para terlapor yakni PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II dan PTMulti Terminal Indonesia mengeluarkan surat pemberitahuan pemakaian alatbongkar muat Gantry Luffing Crane secara bersama-sama di Dermaga 101, 101utara, 102, 114 dan 115 bagi para pengguna jasa pelabuhan. Tindakan tersebutdirasa KPPU merupakan salah satu bentuk persaingan yang tidak sehat karena PTPelabuhan Indonesia II dan PT Multi Terminal Indonesia dinilai telah melakukantying agreement dan praktik monopoli yang merugikan pengguna jasa pelabuhan.Dalam memutus perkara ini, KPPU menjatuhkan hukuman kepada mereka denganketentuan pasal 15 ayat (2) Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999. Skripsi yangdibuat dengan metode yuridis normatif ini meyimpulkan bahwa KPPU tidak tepatdalam memutus bersalah para terlapor dengan ketentuan mengenai tyingagreement dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999, mengingat suratpemberitahuan bukanlah termasuk dalam pengertian perjanjian.;This thesis discusses about Decision of The Commission for The Supervision ofBussiness Competition (KPPU) about the obligation to use loading and unloadingequipment, Gantry Luffing Crane.In order to improve the efficiency andproductivity of loading and unloading in the Port of Tanjung Priok, The Parties,PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Mult Terminal Indonesia issued a letter ofnotification of the use of loading and unloading equipment Gantry Luffing Cranetogether at pier 101, 101 north, 102, 114 dan 115 for the users port services.According the Commision, this case one form of unfair bussiness competitionbecause PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Multi Terminal Indonesia have done atying agreement and monopoly practices that harm users port service. In decidingthis case, the Commission condemned them with the provisions of Article 15paragraph (2) of Law No. 5 of 1999. Thesis created with this normative juridicalmethod concludes that the Commission was not appropriate in deciding the guiltof the reported with the provisions of the agreement tying in Law No. 5 of 1999,considering letter of the notification is not included in the definition of theagreement.;This thesis discusses about Decision of The Commission for The Supervision ofBussiness Competition (KPPU) about the obligation to use loading and unloadingequipment, Gantry Luffing Crane.In order to improve the efficiency andproductivity of loading and unloading in the Port of Tanjung Priok, The Parties,PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Mult Terminal Indonesia issued a letter ofnotification of the use of loading and unloading equipment Gantry Luffing Cranetogether at pier 101, 101 north, 102, 114 dan 115 for the users port services.According the Commision, this case one form of unfair bussiness competitionbecause PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Multi Terminal Indonesia have done atying agreement and monopoly practices that harm users port service. In decidingthis case, the Commission condemned them with the provisions of Article 15paragraph (2) of Law No. 5 of 1999. Thesis created with this normative juridicalmethod concludes that the Commission was not appropriate in deciding the guiltof the reported with the provisions of the agreement tying in Law No. 5 of 1999,considering letter of the notification is not included in the definition of theagreement.;This thesis discusses about Decision of The Commission for The Supervision ofBussiness Competition (KPPU) about the obligation to use loading and unloadingequipment, Gantry Luffing Crane.In order to improve the efficiency andproductivity of loading and unloading in the Port of Tanjung Priok, The Parties,PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Mult Terminal Indonesia issued a letter ofnotification of the use of loading and unloading equipment Gantry Luffing Cranetogether at pier 101, 101 north, 102, 114 dan 115 for the users port services.According the Commision, this case one form of unfair bussiness competitionbecause PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Multi Terminal Indonesia have done atying agreement and monopoly practices that harm users port service. In decidingthis case, the Commission condemned them with the provisions of Article 15paragraph (2) of Law No. 5 of 1999. Thesis created with this normative juridicalmethod concludes that the Commission was not appropriate in deciding the guiltof the reported with the provisions of the agreement tying in Law No. 5 of 1999,considering letter of the notification is not included in the definition of theagreement.;This thesis discusses about Decision of The Commission for The Supervision ofBussiness Competition (KPPU) about the obligation to use loading and unloadingequipment, Gantry Luffing Crane.In order to improve the efficiency andproductivity of loading and unloading in the Port of Tanjung Priok, The Parties,PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Mult Terminal Indonesia issued a letter ofnotification of the use of loading and unloading equipment Gantry Luffing Cranetogether at pier 101, 101 north, 102, 114 dan 115 for the users port services.According the Commision, this case one form of unfair bussiness competitionbecause PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Multi Terminal Indonesia have done atying agreement and monopoly practices that harm users port service. In decidingthis case, the Commission condemned them with the provisions of Article 15paragraph (2) of Law No. 5 of 1999. Thesis created with this normative juridicalmethod concludes that the Commission was not appropriate in deciding the guiltof the reported with the provisions of the agreement tying in Law No. 5 of 1999,considering letter of the notification is not included in the definition of theagreement.;This thesis discusses about Decision of The Commission for The Supervision ofBussiness Competition (KPPU) about the obligation to use loading and unloadingequipment, Gantry Luffing Crane.In order to improve the efficiency andproductivity of loading and unloading in the Port of Tanjung Priok, The Parties,PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Mult Terminal Indonesia issued a letter ofnotification of the use of loading and unloading equipment Gantry Luffing Cranetogether at pier 101, 101 north, 102, 114 dan 115 for the users port services.According the Commision, this case one form of unfair bussiness competitionbecause PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Multi Terminal Indonesia have done atying agreement and monopoly practices that harm users port service. In decidingthis case, the Commission condemned them with the provisions of Article 15paragraph (2) of Law No. 5 of 1999. Thesis created with this normative juridicalmethod concludes that the Commission was not appropriate in deciding the guiltof the reported with the provisions of the agreement tying in Law No. 5 of 1999,considering letter of the notification is not included in the definition of theagreement., This thesis discusses about Decision of The Commission for The Supervision ofBussiness Competition (KPPU) about the obligation to use loading and unloadingequipment, Gantry Luffing Crane.In order to improve the efficiency andproductivity of loading and unloading in the Port of Tanjung Priok, The Parties,PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Mult Terminal Indonesia issued a letter ofnotification of the use of loading and unloading equipment Gantry Luffing Cranetogether at pier 101, 101 north, 102, 114 dan 115 for the users port services.According the Commision, this case one form of unfair bussiness competitionbecause PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Multi Terminal Indonesia have done atying agreement and monopoly practices that harm users port service. In decidingthis case, the Commission condemned them with the provisions of Article 15paragraph (2) of Law No. 5 of 1999. Thesis created with this normative juridicalmethod concludes that the Commission was not appropriate in deciding the guiltof the reported with the provisions of the agreement tying in Law No. 5 of 1999,considering letter of the notification is not included in the definition of theagreement.]"

"Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha (KPPU) merupakan lembaga independen pengawas pelaksanaan Undang - Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999 Tentang Larangan Praktek Monopoli dan Persaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat. KPPU berhak memberikan putusan tetapi tidak memiliki kedudukan sebagai lembaga peradilan perdata, sehingga putusan tersebut tidak dapat di eksekusi oleh KPPU.Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui eksekusi putusan KPPU yang telah berkekuatan hukum tetap dalam praktiknya, megetahui mengapa hingga saat ini masih banyak pelaku usaha yang tidak melaksanakan putusan KPPU yang telah berkekuatan hukum tetap, serta apakah upaya-upaya hukum yang dapat dilakukan agar eksekusi putusan KPPU yang telah berkekuatan hukum tetap dapat berjalan sebagaimana mestinya.Penulisan skripsi ini dikaji berdasarkan metode pendekatan yuridis normatif dan metode deskriptif analitis, yaitu memfokuskan pemecahan masalah berdasarkan data yang diperoleh yang kemudian dianalisa berdasarkan ketentuan dalam perundang-undangan terkait Hukum Persaingan Usaha di Indonesia, literatur serta bahan lain yang berhubungan dengan penelitian dan penelitian lapangan untuk memperoleh data primer melalui wawancara.Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa eksekusi putusan KPPU yang telah berkekuatan hukum tetap dalam praktiknya mengalami berbagai hambatan sehingga tidak dipatuhi oleh pelaku usaha, adanya defense kerahasiaan informasi perusahaan menyebabkan KPPU tidak dapat memperoleh data perusahaan yang diperlukan untuk diletakkan sebagai objek sita eksekusi.

---

The Business Competition Supervisory Commission (KPPU) is an independent institution who supervise the implementation of Indonesian Law Number 5 of 1999 concerning the Banning of Monopoly Practice and Unfair Competition. KPPU is entitled to give judgment but not has the position as a private court, therefore the aforementioned judgment cannot be executed by KPPU.

With this sense, this research tries to analyze the execution of final and binding judgment given by KPPU in it's implementations,to do know why until now there is still businesses not to execute KPPU verdict, and to know what legal remedy that can be done so the execution of KPPU verdict be function properly.

The methodological approach in this research is a juridical normative approach and the analitical descriptive research, which analyze the research to secondary materials and it's relations with Business Competition Law in Indonesia, as well as any other literatures, and field researching in order to obtain primary materials through interviews.

The result shows the execution of final and binding judgment given by KPPU was initiated by KPPU to the District Court to conduct an execution, further, to put a seizure over the execution and also the outcome of auction sales. The District Court will later demand KPPU to be more active in conducting the seizure of the execution by revealing KPPU to earn some kind of object of the execution, such as assets to be seized, when in reality, those objects are difficult to find."

"Perkara persekongkolan tender merupakan salah satu perkara yang mendominasi KPPU hadapi dalam upaya menegakkan hukum persaingan usaha nasional. Maraknya persekongkolan tender ini mengakibatkan dunia persaingan usaha di Indonesia mengarah kepada persaingan usaha tidak sehat yang berdampak pada inefisiensi perekonomian nasional. Sehubungan dengan dikeluarkannya Peraturan Presiden Nomor 54 Tahun 2010 diatur bahwa pengadaan barang dan/atau jasa wajib dilakukan secara elektronik. Dalam proses pengadaan barang dan/atau jasa tersebut membawa implikasi baru bahwa dengan dilakukannya pengadaan tender berbasis sistem elektronik (E-Procurement) maka menciptakan perubahan paradigma yang semula paper based menjadi electronic based. Oleh karena itu muncul perubahan dan perluasan terhadap alat bukti yang diajukan dalam persidangan. Hal ini membawa implikasi baru bahwa bukti elektronik yang dapat dibawa ke dalam persidangan tersebut harus mampu dijamin keautentikannya sehingga sah digunakan sebagai alat bukti. Terkait hal tersebut mengenai bukti elektronik berupa kesamaan Metadata File sebagai indikasi persekongkolan tender yang digunakan Majelis Komisi dalam pertimbangannya tidak diatur dalam peraturan perundang-undangan di Indonesia. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian yuridis-normatif yang menganalis mengenai akibat hukum dari bukti elektronik kesamaan Metadata File sebagai indikasi persekongkolan tender dalam hukum persaingan usaha di Indonesia.

---

The tender conspiracy case is one of the cases that dominate KPPU facing in an effort to enforce national business competition law. The rise of tender conspiracy causes the world of business competition in Indonesia to lead to unhealthy business competition which impact on the inefficiency of national economy. In connection with the issuance of Presidential Regulation No. 54 of 2010 stipulated that the procurement of goods and / or services must be done electronically. In the process of procurement of goods and / or services it brings new implication that by doing procurement of tender based on electronic system (E-Procurement) hence create paradigm change which originally paper based become electronic based. Therefore, there are changes and extensions to the evidence presented in the hearing. This brings new implications that electronic evidence that can be brought into the trial must be able to guarantee its authenticity so that it is legitimately used as evidence. Related to this concerning electronic evidence in the form of Metadata File similarity as an indication of the tender conspiracy used by Commission Council in its consideration is not regulated in the legislation in Indonesia. This study is a juridical-normative research that analyzes the legal effect of electronic evidence of Metadata File similarity as an indication of tender conspiracy in competition law in Indonesia."

"Tesis ini membahas mengenai perjanjian penetapan harga dalam perspektif hukum persaingan usaha pada putusan KPPU 2013-2014, jenis perjanjian ini sering terjadi karena adanya maksud untuk mencari keuntungan secara mudah oleh pelaku usaha yang mengakibatkan persaingan usaha tidak sehat. Permasalahan yang dibahas yaitu bagaimana dasar pertimbangan dan alasan yuridis larangan perjanjian penetapan harga pada UU Nomor 5 Tahun 1999, hal-hal apa saja yang harus diungkap atas perjanjian penetapan harga dan bagaimana konsistensi KPPU dalam menjatuhkan sanksi atas perjanjian penetapan harga, serta bagaimana akibat perjanjian penetapan harga terhadap persaingan usaha di pasar dan konsumen terkait dalam perspektif hukum persaingan usaha. Tujuan pada penulisan tesis ini untuk menjelaskan mengenai dasar pertimbangan dan alasan yuridis larangan perjanjian penetapan harga pada UU Nomor 5 Tahun 1999, untuk menjelaskan mengenai hal-hal yang harus diungkap atas perjanjian penetapan harga dan konsistensi KPPU dalam menjatuhkan sanksi atas perjanjian penetapan harga, serta untuk menjelaskan akibat perjanjian penetapan harga terhadap persaingan usaha di pasar dan konsumen terkait dalam perspektif hukum persaingan usaha. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian normatif, dengan tipologi penelitian deskriptif, cara pengolahan data secara kualitatif dengan menggunakan data sekunder, pengumpulan data yaitu melalui studi kepustakaan, dan cara penarikan kesimpulan menggunakan logika deduktif. Dasar pertimbangan dan alasan yuridis larangan perjanjian penetapan harga pada UU Nomor 5 Tahun 1999, yaitu karena perilaku kesepakatan penetapan harga akan secara langsung menghilangkan persaingan yang seharusnya terjadi diantara para pelaku usaha di pasar. Hal-hal yang harus diungkap atas perjanjian penetapan harga, yaitu unsur pelaku usaha, pelaku usaha pesaing, menetapkan harga atas barang/jasa, dan inkosistensi KPPU menggunakan pendekatan hukum. Konsistensi KPPU dalam menjatuhkan sanksi atas perjanjian penetapan harga harus mengacu pada Pedoman Pasal 47 UU No. 5 Tahun 1999 tentang Tindakan Administratif. Akibat/dampak terhadap persaingan usaha dan konsumen di pasar terkait yaitu adanya hambatan masuk ke pasar (barrier to entry), dan hambatan ke luar pasar (barrier to exit) bagi pelaku usaha, sedangkan dampak terhadap konsumen terkait yaitu mahalnya harga barang/jasa dan terciptanya inefisiensi yang dapat menurunkan kesejahteraan konsumen (consumer welfare).

---

This thesis discusses about price fixing agreement in the perspective of business competition law on a verdict of KPPU 2013-2014, this kind of agreement often occurs because there is an intent to look for a profit easily by the business actor that causing an unfair competition. The issues to be discussed are how a basic consideration and legal reason of prohibition on price fixing agreement under the law no.5/1999, what the things that should be disclosed in the price fixing agreeement and how the consistency of KPPU in imposing sanctions on price fixing agreement, and also how the impact of price fixing agreement on competition in the relevant market and consumers in the perspective of competition law. The purposes in writing this thesis are explaining the basic consideration and legal reason of prohibition on price fixing agreement under the law no. 5/1999, explaining the things that should be disclosed on price fixing agreement and the consistency of KPPU in imposing sanctions on price fixing agreement, and also explaining the impact of price fixing agreement on competition in the relevant market and consumers in the perspective of competition law. This research is normative with descriptive typology, processing data in qualitative using a secondary data, collecting data through the study of literature, and drawing a conclusion using the deductive logic. The basic consideration and legal reason of prohibiton on price fixing agreement under the law no. 5/1999 is because the behavior of price fixing agreement will directly eliminate the competition that should occurs between the business actor in the market. The things that should be disclosed on price fixing agreement are the element of business actor, business competitor, the element of price fixing for the goods/services, and inconsistency KPPU using a legal approach. Consistency KPPU in imposing sanctions on price fixing agreement should refer to the guideline of the article 47 law No. 5/1999 on Administrative Measures. The impact on competition and consumers in the relevant market are the existences of barrier to entry, and barrier to exit for another business actors, whereas the impact for the related consumers are high prices of goods/services and the creation of inefficiencies that can reduce the consumer welfare."

"Pengadaan alat kedokteran, kesehatan, dan KB yang dilakukan oleh RSUD Embung Fatimah Batam dilakukan dengan mengadakan tender. Dengan diadakan pengadaan secara tender, diharapkan pemerintah bisa mendapatkan barang dengan spesifikasi yang baik namun dengan harga yang se-efisien mungkin. Namun ternyata KPPU menemukan praktek persekongkolan tender yang diatur oleh seseorang yang berperan sebagai seorang koordinator tender kolusi. Skripsi ini membahas dan menganalisis tanggung jawab Koordinator Tender Kolusi atas tindakannya yang menyebabkan terjadinya persekongkolan tender. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian yuridis-normatif menggunakan data sekunder. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa KPPU tidak berwenang memeriksa maupun mengadili koordinator tender kolusi ini terkait kedudukanya yang bukan merupakan pelaku usaha. Kewenangan KPPU terbatas pada pemberian rekomendasi kepada Polisi atau jaksa untuk memeriksa koordinator tender kolusi secara pidana. Selanjutnya koordinator tender kolusi dapat dikenakan sanksi berupa tindak pidana korupsi oleh Polisi dan Kejaksaan.

---

Procurement of medical equipment, health, and family planning conducted by Embung Fatimah Hospital Batam done by holding a bidding procurement. With organized bidding procurement, the government is expected to be able to get the goods with good specifications but with prices as efficiently as possible. But apparently the Commission finds bidding conspiracy practices governed by someone who acts as a bidding coordinator collusion. This paper discusses and analyzes the Bidding Coordinator responsibility for his actions that led to collusion, bid rigging occurrence. This research is a normative juridical using secondary data.

These results indicate that the Commission is not authorized to investigate or prosecute the coordinator of this collusion related it‟s status which is not a business actor. The authority of the Commission is limited to the provision of recommendations to the police or the prosecutor to examine the Bidding Coordinator Collusion by criminal law. Furthermore, the coordinator of the tender collusion may be liable to corruption by police and prosecutors."