CHARACTERISTICS OF INDIRECT EVIDENCE TOWARDS PRICE FIXING AGREEMENTS IN THE PERSPECTIVE OF COMPETITION LAW
##plugins.themes.EpsilonTheme.article.main##
Elreddian Kusuma Dewi
Zahry Vandawati Chumaida*
Sinar Aju Wulandari
In the ever-changing landscape of Indonesian business, the pursuit of profits drives actors to engage in intense competition, all regulated by the Business Competition Law. This unique legal field combines both conventional law and economics to address unfair business practices, such as agreements that manipulate prices to deceive consumers. This research focuses on the characteristics of indirect evidence utilized by the Business Competition Supervisory Commission (KPPU) when investigating cases of price-fixing. The goal is to gain a deeper understanding of the legal implications of using indirect evidence within the procedural framework of Business Competition Law in Indonesia. To achieve this, a Normative Research method is employed, utilizing a multi-faceted approach. Through case analysis, statutory examination, conceptual exploration, and comparative study, the research explores patterns, legal frameworks, theoretical concepts, and perspectives from different jurisdictions, all related to the use of indirect evidence in the context of price fixing. The results revealed that Indirect evidence, classified as clue evidence under Perkom No. 1 Of 2019, encompasses communication and economic evidence. When direct evidence is lacking, these components, including documents or electronic information, play a crucial role in proving allegations of price-fixing. The legal implications of indirect evidence in the Indonesian competition law evidentiary system highlight its widespread use in resolving cases. However, there is a legal gap that poses challenges to the admissibility of indirect evidence in court proceedings. This emphasizes the need for legal reforms to effectively accommodate the role of indirect evidence.
AMA Journal of Ethics. (2015). Challenging the Medical Residency Matching System through Antitrust Litigation. Available from: https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/challenging-medical-residency-matching-system-through-antitrust-litigation/2015-02 (Accessed November 24, 2023).
Aminah, S. (2023). Kedudukan Bukti Tidak Langsung (Indirect Evidence) Dalam Penyelesaian Praktik Kartel Di Indonesia. Dharmasisya Jurnal Program Magister Hukum FHUI, 2.
Bain, S. (2023, December 4). Parallel Conduct Definition and Meaning. Available from: https://www.dyingeconomy.com/parallel-conduct.html
Bhakti, R. T. A. (2015). Analisis Yuridis Dampak Terjadinya Pasar Oligopoli Bagi Persaingan Usaha Maupun Konsumen Di Indonesia. Jurnal Cahaya Keadilan, 3(2).
Connor, J. M. (2001). Global Price Fixing: Our Customer Are The Enemy. Massachusetts: Kluwer Academic Publishers Group.
Devlin, A. (2007). A Proposed Solution to Problem of Parallel Pricing in Oligopolistic Markets. Stanford Law Review, 59(4).
Fitriyah, S., & Sulistiyono, A. (2018). Analisis Yuridis Dan Penggunaan Indirect Evidence Dalam Kasus Kartel Sepeda Motor Di Indonesia Ditinjau Dari Hukum Persaingan Usaha Indonesia. Privat Law, 6(1).
Hermansyah. (2009). Pokok-Pokok Hukum Persaingan Usaha Di Indonesia. Jakarta: Kencana.
Hiariej, E. O. S. (2013). Teori Dan Hukum Pembuktian. Jakarta: Erlangga.
Hidayah, R. K. (2021). Circumstantial Evidence (Bukti Tidak Langsung) Sebagai Alat Bukti dalam Perkara Kartel Di Indonesia. Disertasi, Program Pascasarjana Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya.
Hidayah, R. K. (2021). Circumstantial Evidence Sebagai Alat Bukti Dalam Perkara Kartel: Praktik Dan Standar Pembuktian Di Masa Depan. Jakarta: Kencana.
Hovenkamp, H. (1993). Anti Trust. St. Paul Minnesota: West Publishing, Co.
Hovenkamp, H. (1999). Federal Antitrust Policy The Law of Competition and Its Practices, 2nd Edition. West Academic Publishing.
Jemarut, W. (2020). Pendekatan Rule Of Reason Dan Per Se Illegal Dalam Perkara Persaingan Usaha. Widya Yuridika, 3(2).
Jenny, F., & Katsoulacos, Y. (2016). Competition Law Enforcement in the BRICS and in Developing Countries: Legal and Economic Aspects. Switzerland: Springer Publisher.
Juwana, H., et al. (2003). Peran Lembaga Peradilan Dalam Menangani Perkara Persaingan Usaha. Jakarta: Partnership for Business Competition.
Kagramanto, L. B. (2012). Mengenal Hukum Persaingan Usaha. Sidoarjo: Laros.
Kaplan, B. M. (1985). A Guide To Modern Business and Commercial Law. Chicago: Commerce Clearing House.
Koloay, R. N. S. (2016). Perkembangan Hukum Indonesia Berkenaan Dengan Teknologi Informasi Dan Komunikasi. Jurnal HUkum Unsrat, 22(5).
Kumalasari, D. M. S. (2013). Hukum Persaingan Usaha: Studi Konsep Pembuktian Terhadap Perjanjian Penetapan Harga Dalam Persaingan Usaha. Malang: Setara Press.
Lubis, A. F., et al. (2017). Hukum Persaingan Usaha. Jakarta: Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha (KPPU).
Menteri Keuangan. (2023, December 8). Menkeu: Seluruh Negara Anggota OECD Dukung Penuh Proses Aksesi Indonesia. Available from: https://www.kemenkeu.go.id/informasi-publik/publikasi/berita-utama/Negara-Anggota-OECD-Dukung-Aksesi-Indonesia
Munandiya, R. (2011). Bukti Tidak Langsung (Indirect Evidence) Dalam Penanganan Kasus Persaingan Usaha. Jurnal Persaingan Usaha, Edisi 5.
Muzakki, A. I. (2023). Perkembangan Pendekatan Dalam Hukum Persaingan Usaha: Truncated Rule of Reason. Jurnal Persaingan Usaha, 3(2).
Nadapdap, B. (2019). Hukum Persaingan Usaha Bukti Tidak Langsung (Indirect Evidence) versus Tembok Kartel. Jakarta: Permata Aksara.
Nadapdap, B. (2020). Hukum Acara Persaingan Usaha Pasca-Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi. Jakarta: Kencana Prenada Media.
OECD. (2006). Policy Roundtables: Prosecuting Cartels without Direct Evidence. Available from: https://www.oecd.org/daf/competition/37391162.pdf (Accessed September 11, 2023).
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2014). OECD Competition Policy Roundtable on the Use of Circumstantial Evidence in Competition Cases: A Follow Up.
Pratama, A. P. R., et al. (2023). Urgensi Pengaturan Leniency Program Terhadap Dugaan Kartel Atas Kelangkaan Minyak Goreng Di Indonesia. UNES Law Review, 5(4).
Silalahi, U., & Edgina, I. C. (2017). Evidentiary Process of Cartel Cases in Indonesia Using Indirect Evidence. Jurnal Yudisial, 10(3).
Silalahi, U., & Parluhutan, D. (2011). Circumstantial Evidence in The Substantiation Mechanism Against Cartel Infringements in Indonesia. Jurnal Hukum Bisnis, 30(2).
Siswanto, A. (2004). Hukum Persaingan Usaha. Bogor: Ghalia Indonesia.
Sitompul, A. (1999). Praktek Monopoli Dan Persaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat (Tinjauan Terhadap UU No. 5 Tahun 1999). Bandung: Citra Aditya Bakti.
Syahdeini, S. R. (2000). Larangan Praktik Monopoli Dan Persaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat. Jurnal Hukum Bisnis, 10.
US Supreme Court. (1946). America Tobacco Co. V. United States, 328 U.S. 781. Available from: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/328/781/ (Accessed October 4, 2023).
US Supreme Court. (1996). In Re High Fructose Corn Syrup Antitrust Litigation, 936 F. Supp. 530 (C.D. III. 1996). Available from: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/936/530/1487124/ (Accessed October 4, 2023).
Usman, R. (2004). Hukum Persaingan Usaha Di Indonesia. Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka Utama.
Widhiyanti, H. N. (2015). Pendekatan Per Se Illegal Dan Rule of Reason Dalam Hukum Persaingan (Perbandingan Indonesia-Malaysia). Arena Hukum, 8(3).
