REVIEW OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE BUSINESS COMPETITION SUPERVISORY COMMISSION (KPPU) AS A SPECIAL JUDICIAL INSTITUTION

Abstract

Business world needs a healthy and competitive business climate. The true presence of Law No. 5 of 1999 concerning the Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Antimonopoly Law) is to create a healthy climate of competition within the framework of economic democracy, which places every citizen in the same position and opportunity in the business sector or effort. The Business Competition Supervisory Commission (KPPU) is the spearhead for the supervision and enforcement of business competition law, where the task of law enforcement makes it an institution with broad and large authority. However, the facts show that many KPPU decisions were canceled and could not be implemented in the field due to the weak authority that the KPPU had. This condition raises the thought of the legislature to expand KPPU's authority again, which in turn triggers pros and cons. Therefore, it is very important to conduct further studies regarding the expansion of this authority. This article will discuss the KPPU's authority arrangement in the Antimonopoly Law in the judicial system in Indonesia by synchronizing norms, in order to find the concept of KPPU's authority that can strengthen the duties and functions of preventing monopolistic practices and unfair business competition. This research is a normative (doctrinal) legal research through a statutory approach (Staue Approach) and library research, namely research conducted by collecting data from various libraries related to the problem under study, including primary, secondary and tertiary legal materials . Data collection is carried out by means of document / library studies by qualitative data analysis and grammatical interpretation. Systematic and theological. The research results show that First, the expansion of the KPPU's authority in enforcing business competition law will not conflict with judicial authority, because in the study of the mandate authority theory, this is very much possible. Second, the concept of regulating the authority of KPPU that can strengthen the duties and functions of preventing monopolistic practices and unfair business competition is the authority supported by improving the legal system, including (i) the revision of the principles, objectives, and substance of the Antimonopoly Law material in accordance with the principles of economic democracy the formulation contained in the 1945 Constitution after the amendment. (ii) improvement of facilities and infrastructure for law enforcers, namely by providing independent search authority for the process of examining business competition cases. (iii) rationalization of Pancasila values in the education sector so that the community is more alive in daily life behavior, and has a new paradigm in managing business competition disputes. The advice given is the revision of Law Number 5 Year 1999 Concerning Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition should be carried out in accordance with the principles of establishing good legislation as regulated in Articles 5 and 6, Law Number 12 of 2011 concerning Formation of Legislation.