Critical Study of Business Competition Supervisory Commission’s Authority in Handling Business Competition Violations

: The purpose of this study is to criticize the authority of the Business Competition Supervisory Commission (KPPU) in overcoming and resolving business competition violations. The authority in question is regulated in Law Number 5 of 1999 concerning the Prohibition of Monopoly Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Business Competition Law) jo. Law Number 11 of 2020 concerning Job Creation. According to the provisions of laws and regulations, KPPU acts as an independent state auxilary organ. At the practical level, KPPU exercises the authority to investigate, prosecute, and decide. Normative legal research is used by researchers to answer related problems through a legal approach and a comparative approach with literature study methods. The results showed that the implementation of KPPU's authority in handling business competition violations can be said to be still not optimal. Researchers suggest that the ideal authority policy in handling business competition violations can refer to several countries that have similar business competition law enforcement agencies by making adjustments to business competition conditions in Indonesia.


INTRODUCTION
Business competition can be interpreted as a condition, where several business actors try to obtain or maintain a position in a market. 1The stronger the position of business actors, 1 Munir Fuady.(1999).Hukum Anti Monopoli: Menyongsong Era Persaingan Sehat.Bandung: Citra Aditya Bakti.

Critical Study of Business Competition Supervisory Commission's Authority in Handling Business Competition Violations
Inas Sofia Latif 1 *, Ilham Aji Pangestu 2 , Muhammad Rizqi Fadhlillah 3 Competition. 19 a state institution, KPPU has an important role in developing the national economy.It is hoped that KPPU can oversee and supervise business competition that will contribute to national economic development in the future.Researchers will criticize the implementation and ideal policies related to the authority of KPPU in handling business competition violations in a study entitled "Critical Study of the Authority of the Business Competition Commission (KPPU) in Handling Business Competition Violations".

RESEARCH METHOD
This research is a prescriptive research that is included in normative legal research.
Legislative approaches and comparative approaches were used in this study to help While secondary legal materials are obtained from journal articles, books, or scientific publications relevant to the authority of the Business Competition Supervisory Commission (KPPU).Analysis of legal materials is carried out using descriptive methods in order to produce conclusions that can be accounted for. 20

A. KPPU's Position in Handling Business Competition Violations
The establishment of KPPU was based on the spirit of the Indonesian nation to oversee the implementation of the mandate of Article 33 paragraphs (1) and (4) of the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945 (1945 Constitution).In that article, the constitution states that the economy is based on the principles of kinship and economic democracy.The national economic system is intended and can be controlled by the people through their representatives based on the principles of equitable efficiency, togetherness, environmental insight, maintaining a balance of progress and national economic unity, sustainability, and independence.
The existence of the Business Competition Law in Indonesia requires the presence of KPPU to be able to supervise its implementation.The establishment of KPPU is none other than to ensure and supervise the compliance of the provisions in the Business Competition Law which applies as the basis for competition policy of business actors.KPPU is an independent institution, which handles, decides, or investigates a case, regardless of the power of other parties.Nevertheless, KPPU has a responsibility to 19 Eki Furqon & Helvan Subia Effendi.(2020)."Kedudukan Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha Dalam Memutus Pelanggaran Persaingan Usaha Menurut Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999 tentang Larangan Praktek Monopoli dan Persaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat".Jurnal Hukum dan Keadilan, 7(2): 23-35. 20Peter Mahmud Marzuki.(2008).Pengantar Ilmu Hukum.Jakarta: Kencana.
the president for the implementation of his duties and authorities.
The duties of KPPU mandated by law to be able to carry out supervisory functions are to assess business activities, agreements, and the presence or absence of abuse or violations that allow monopolistic practices and unfair business competition.
KPPU has the right to provide advice and consideration on government policies, take action in accordance with its authority, formulate guidelines based on related laws and regulations, and provide reports to the president and the House of Representatives (DPR).the constitution.The importance of the role of quasi-institutions is a form of effort for countries that are transitioning from authoritarian states to democracies. 26However, the law enforcement function of KPPU does not necessarily make KPPU a special judicial institution for business competition.
Meanwhile, in carrying out its duties and authorities, KPPU still experiences several obstacles that cause its duties cannot be carried out optimally.For example, such as: 1) In its investigative authority, when KPPU requires company data, it is often constrained by the nature of company confidentiality.So that the data in question cannot be accessed.Even if the business actor is indicated to have committed a violation, the KPPU cannot conduct a search against him.2) Regarding the summoning of business actors and witnesses, the KPPU does not have the power to present them.3) There is no cooperation with government agencies with KPPU.The data required by KPPU related to business competition violations are sometimes related to information from government agencies.When supporting data is missing or insufficient, the investigation process is not optimal to be carried out. 27e obstacles faced by KPPU seem to narrow the space for KPPU in its performance to handle business competition violations.The exercise of its authority is hampered and becomes less than optimal.This is of course a challenge for KPPU.
Furthermore, regarding the institutional status of KPPU in the constitutional system is no less important to obtain a clear answer.Given that the existence of KPPU that is not expressly recognized will trigger debates that have consequences for its position as an institution and of course will have an adverse impact on the implementation of its duties and functions mandated by law.

B. The Power of KPPU Decisions and Legal Certainty
The KPPU decision is the end of a long process of handling cases of business implementation report to the KPPU. 28e legal remedy for business actors who do not accept the KPPU decision is to file an objection to the commercial court.However, we can know that the existence of commercial courts in Indonesia is still limited and only stands in provincial capitals.
Changes in the submission of objections from the district court to the commercial court will basically make it very difficult for business actors, because previously business actors could file legal remedies for objections in the district court according to the domicile of the business actor.Meanwhile, currently, business actors need access and longer time to make objections to the commercial court.
In its development, commercial courts continue to receive an expansion of absolute competence from special legislation (lex specialis), but on the other hand the number of commercial courts does not increase.The expansion of absolute competence should ideally be accompanied by an increase in the number of courts.This means that the addition of absolute competence will certainly have an impact on the relative competence of the commercial court itself.So, by looking at current and future needs, especially if there is an expansion of absolute competence, namely handling business competition cases, it is necessary to increase the number, so as to expand its relative competence. 29though the KPPU is not a judicial institution that falls into the judicial branch of power, KPPU rulings have a strong position.If no objection is made against the decision, the decision will have permanent legal force as stipulated in Article 46 paragraph (1) of the Business Competition Law.However, the KPPU decision cannot be executed immediately before the court asks for an execution order.In this case, clarity regarding the strength of the KPPU decision becomes a discussion when many business actors do not implement the KPPU decision.
Based on official data released by the KPPU, the data entitled "KPPU and the Attorney General's Office Successfully Execute Sanctions on Business Actors Who Fail from the Verdict" contains information about business actors who have not implemented the KPPU decision and reported who have failed to implement the decision along with the total unpaid fines.Based on the data presented, there are still many business actors who have not implemented the KPPU decision. 30ere are 109 KPPU rulings with permanent legal force that have not been implemented.Then, there were also 319 reported persons who failed to implement the decision, with a total unpaid fine of Rp341,000,000,000 (three hundred forty-one billion rupiah). 31Therefore, KPPU's cooperation with the Attorney General's Office of the Republic of Indonesia, one of which is intended to assist the execution process, both in litigation and non-litigation.So it is possible that the Attorney General's Office of the Republic of Indonesia will criminalize the reported persons who are absent from the implementation of the KPPU decision with permanent legal force.
Referring to the legal rules, within 30 (thirty) days from the receipt of notification of the decision by the KPPU to business actors, the decision must have been implemented.If it is not implemented, then the decision will be investigated based on applicable provisions after being submitted to the investigator by the KPPU (Article 44 paragraph (4) of the Business Competition Law).Furthermore, it is clarified through KPPU Regulation Number 1 of 2019 concerning Case Handling Procedures that cases will be processed criminally by the police if business actors do not implement the KPPU decision in at least 2 (two) cases (Article 67).Of course, after the case was handed over by the KPPU to the police.
Based on the description above, it can be said that the KPPU as the only state institution that has the authority to enforce the laws of the Business Competition Law has a decision whose level of strength can be said to be not strong.This can be seen in the Business Competition Law which states that the KPPU decision will take effect if determined in advance by the commercial court and will only have permanent legal force (inkracht) if no legal remedy is filed to object to it.This can be interpreted that the KPPU decision is not the same decision as the decision of the judiciary in general, because the KPPU decision cannot be directly executed.
The position of a judgment whose existence is recognized by law but whose execution cannot be guaranteed expressly indicates the absence of legal certainty.The constitution expressly states the right to obtain legal certainty in article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution and this is a right that is owned by everyone or in this case all Indonesian people. 32The logical consequence of this is that the consensus of the state gives equal rights to obtain several things including protection and fair legal certainty. 33The construction of inconsistencies in fair legal protection and certainty is at least still reflected in the implementation of handling business competition. 34e implications arising from uncertainty on business competition legal certainty will have an impact on hampering Indonesia's economic development.In line with the 31 Ibid.

C. KPPU Strengthening: A Comparative Study
The issue of strengthening the authority of the KPPU has become an interesting and controversial issue.Those who want the KPPU to be more powerful, then the celebration strengthens the authority of the KPPU as it exists today.The second group wants the KPPU's authority to be proportionate to the Indonesian judicial system.KPPU must be placed as an institution that has power in the executive field. 36 order to see the position of KPPU in the judicial system in Indonesia, a comparative study was conducted with business competition law enforcement agencies in several countries that have similar institutions.This comparative study is intended to find a reference to place the position of business competition law enforcement agencies in the constitutional system and judicial system.Researcher took several countries as comparison material, namely: Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Japan, the United States, and Germany.

Thailand Competition Law Enforcement Agency
Competition TCC has the authority of, among others: 1. make recommendations to the minister in terms of making regulations in the field of business competition as specified in the TCC.
2. determine market share and sales that can determine the dominant position in the business.
3. provide consideration related to the application for a merger application that may restrict trade practices.
4. receive reports from business actors related to actions in the field of criminal law that violate prohibitions in the trade competition law.

Malaysian Competition Law Enforcement Agency
Competition in Malaysia was initially governed by the energy and communications Consumerism. 39MyCC is a key institution chosen to focus on enforcement of business competition policies and laws. 40MyCC's powers are fully regulated in the Competition Commission Act 2010, section 16(d).Likewise, the provisions for penalties for violations that occur in the field of business competition, including within the realm of MyCC's authority mentioned in (Section 17 (2) (b) of the Competition Commission Act 2010). 41CC is established and regulated by the provisions of the Competition Act and MyCC Act.Among other things, its statutory functions are to conduct market reviews, investigate alleged violations of competition law, receive and follow up complaints of violations, order provisional measures in urgent cases, conduct examinations, make findings of violations or otherwise and impose penalties for violations.Thus, the commission practically bears the entire responsibility for enforcing the competition regime.Therefore, it is very important for the members of the commission to be able and willing to carry out their duties as supervisors and main judges of competition policy in the country.The approach used in competition law enforcement in Malaysia is a soft approach and a hard approach.The soft approach taken by MyCC is enforced for violators by not providing penalties, fines or damages.Instead, MyCC imposes financial sanctions on violators in the use of a harsh approach.In cases handled by MyCC, if there is evidence that shows an element of violation, MyCC will continue the investigation process.MyCC will issue a final decision to determine whether there has been a breach under the Competition Act 2010.In case of violations, MyCC will impose financial penalties for several cases mentioned in its laws and regulations.43

Singapore Competition Law Enforcement Agency
Business competition in Singapore is regulated through the Competition Act 2004, complementary legislation to reform market liberalization and achieve compliance with its free trade agreements. 44The ban on anti-competitive behaviour came into effect under the supervision of the Competition Commission of Singapore (CCS) following the passage of the Competition Act 2004.The CCS, which is under the Ministry of Trade and Industry (Chapter 50B), 45 has the authority of the judiciary, and therefore has a crucial role in policy and legal development in Singapore. 46CCS has the authority to supervise the implementation of the Competition Act In April 2018, CCS became the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS). 47The Competition Act 2004 empowers CCS to investigate suspected anticompetitive activity, determine whether such activity violates the law and enact appropriate financial remedies, directives and sanctions.The CCCS also has an obligation to advise governments with respect to competition issues 48 including collective agreements or practices that prevent, limit, or distort competition, abuse of dominant position, and mergers that substantially reduce competition.In addition, CCCS is responsible for additional functions of administering the Consumer Protection Act. 49mpetition law enforcement should consider the context and objectives of the regulation, and regulations should be developed with the competitive impact of the competition in mind. 50If competition enforcement is carried out by sectoral regulators, there is a need to harmonize approaches because the activities of private companies may extend beyond regulated sectors and fall under the purview of competition law.Cross-43 Nazura Abdul Manap.Op.Cit.
sector competition issues are addressed by CCCS in consultation with sectoral regulators.
CCCS and sectoral regulators also meet regularly as part of the Community of Practice for Competition and Economic Regulations (COPCOMER) to share best practices and experiences on competition and regulatory issues within their scope. 51

Japan Competition Law Enforcement Agency
The regulation of competition law in Japan is regulated in the Antimonopoly Law (AML), 1947.Article 27 paragraph (1) of AML stipulates that the business competition enforcement agency in Japan is the Japan Fair Trade Commission (JFTC).The JFTC is an independent administrative Administratively, the JFTC is responsible to the prime minister.The filling of the post of commissioner of the JFTC is based on the appointment of the prime minister with the approval of parliament.The appointment and dismissal of JFTC commissioners was confirmed to the Japanese emperor.The requirement to become a JFTC commissioner is to have expertise in law and economics.
Although appointed by the prime minister and with the approval of parliament does not eliminate the independence of the JFTC.The independence of the JFTC causes this institution to be evidenced in any decision-making that cannot be influenced by other state institutions including the prime minister and parliament. 52 a competition law enforcement agency, AML gives authority to the JFTC including administrative authority, quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial authority.In the administrative field, the JFTC has the authority to receive and examine reports from companies on violations of AML, conduct general surveys related to business activities, economic conditions and monopolistic conditions, perform consultative functions with companies and associations of business actors, discuss competition issues with international organizations and competition law authorities.In the quasi-legislative field, the JFTC has the authority to make regulations on the actions of business actors that are considered unfair competition, regulations on the determination of selling prices and purchase prices of certain commodities, procedural law before the JFTC.In the quasijudicial field, the JFTC has the authority to examine and prosecute cases of AML violations.Although the possible solutions from the DOJ-AD and FTC will be the same, the methods for obtaining damages between the two are very likely to differ.The DOJ-AD, which initiates enforcement actions in federal district courts, has no administrative alternative, so in this case the FTC can initiate internal administrative proceedings. 58In practice, although they seem to overlap in some respects of authority, the DOJ-AD and FTC are complementary agencies. 59Before opening an investigation, the FTC and DOJ-AD consulted each other to avoid attempts at duplication. 60 Germany there are five institutions that play a role in the process of competition law enforcement, the five institutions consist of the Anticartel Agency (Bundeskartellamt or Federal Cartel Office), the Federal Ministry of Economics, the Regional Cartel Office (Supreme Land Authorities), the Monopolies Commission and the courts. 61The division of authority between competition agencies in Germany has been going well, starting from the Regional Cartel Office which is authorized to handle competition cases in the regions, the Anti-Cartel Agency has almost the same authority as the Regional Cartel Office but its authority is greater because it can examine competition cases that have a greater impact. 62other institution authorized to handle business competition cases is the Federal Ministry of Economy, the role of this agency is only to give approval for the concentration of a market that is felt to benefit the national economy as a whole which was previously banned by the anti-cartel agency.Less authority belongs to the Monopoly Commission.The main task of this institution is to provide consideration to the German Federal Government 56 I Made Sarjana and Budi Kagramanto.(2012).'Prinsip Pembuktian Dalam Hukum Acara Persaingan
researchers answer existing problems.Researchers use secondary data obtained through literature studies.Laws and other related regulations are used as a reference or what we call primary legal material.The laws and regulations in question are Law Number 5 of 1999 concerning the Prohibition of Monopoly Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Business Competition Law) jo.Law Number 11 of 2020 concerning Job Creation (Job Creation Law).
law in Thailand is regulated in the Trade Competition Act of 1999.The main mission of regulating business competition in the country of white elephants is to regulate relations between business actors in Thailand.Thailand's competition laws regulate all business sectors except those that are exempt from the law.In terms of substantiation, many trade competition regulations adopt the norms of competition law in the US and European Union competition law.Broadly speaking, competition laws regulate trade practices that create monopolies and reduce competition.Thailand's trade competition law established a competition law enforcement agency, the Trade Competition Commission (TCC).Institutionally, TCC is a government agency under the Department of Internal Trade, a department under the minister of trade.TCC membership consists of representatives from a wide variety of government agencies and comes from 8 to 12 people who have expertise.Most of them are from business people.
sectors.Provisions relating to competition regulations incorporated in their respective laws and regulations, indicate prohibitions relating to anti-competitive practices. 37Henceforth, competition law arrangements in Malaysia are regulated in the Competition Commission Act 2010 (Competition Act).The Competition Act provides provisions relating to the establishment, authority and function of the Malaysia Competition Commission (MyCC) and other matters related thereto. 38MyCC as the supervisor and implementer of the 2010 Competition Law, is an independent body under the Ministry of Domestic Trade, Cooperatives, and Sembiring regarding the Job Creation Law, which needs to be prepared to attract investors to invest in Indonesia, it is necessary to have clear and logical legal tools.35This is still a homework for policymakers to be able to clarify the status, especially for legal rules and existing legal instruments in handling business competition violations.
33Ilham AjiPangestu, et al. (2023)."Environmental Conservation Policy Model Based on the Protection of Indigenous Peoples in Indonesia".Sasi, 29(158), 96-111. 34Parida Angriani.(2016)."Indikasi Kartel Komunditas Strategis Dalam Perspektif Hukum Persaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat".Jurnal Dialogia Iuridica: Jurnal Hukum Bisnis dan Investasi, 7(2): 24-31.JUSTISI | UNIVERSITAS MUHAMMADIYAH SORONG 287 opinion expressed by 42 37 Nazura Abdul Manap.(2016)."Regulating Anti-Competitive Business Conduct via Competition Law in authority, KPPU is authorized to apply business competition law through the process of investigation, investigation, and decision making.56Ifwewant to formulate how exactly the ideal authority that must be possessed by business competition law enforcement agencies, at least we need to compare and learn from similar institutions in developed countries that have previously succeeded in implementing business competition law enforcement in the country concerned.If you look at the practice of business competition law enforcement in the United States, there are two agencies that handle business competition cases, namely DOJ-AD and FTC.Both have different scopes the implementation of investigations.The FTC conducts investigations into the retail, pharmaceutical, and defense industry sectors.While DOJ-AD on mergers in telecommunications, agricultural industry, and financial services.57 51 Charmaine Tan & Ng Ming Jie.Op.Cit.. 52 Muh.Risnain.Op.Cit. 53uh.Risnain.Op.Cit.and