Electronic Theses and Dissertation

Pasal 22 undang-undang nomor 5 tahun 1999 tentang larangan praktik monopoli dan persaingan usaha tidak sehat melarang persekongkolan tender. sebagai langkah pencegahan pemerintah menerapkan tender elektronik sebagai upaya transparansi, sehingga komisi pengawas persaingan usaha (kppu) menggunakan internet protocol adress atau ip address sebagai bukti persekongkolan tender. berdasarkan pasal 1 angka 1 uu no. 11 tahun 2008 jo. uu no. 19 tahun 2016 tentang informasi dan transaksi elektronik (uu ite) menyebut ip address sebagai informasi elektronik, sedangkan pasal 5 ayat (1) uu ite menegaskan informasi dan dokumen elektronik sebagai alat bukti hukum yang sah. namun, mahkamah agung melalui putusan no. 445 k/pdt.sus-kppu/2021 menilai kesamaan ip address hanya bagian dari verifikasi kelompok kerja (pokja), berbeda dengan pandangan kppu, sehingga menimbulkan ketidakpastian hukum. studi kasus ini bertujuan menganalisis pertimbangan kppu dan mahkamah agung terhadap kesamaan ip address serta dampaknya pada kepastian, keadilan, dan penguatan standar pembuktian digital di indonesia. metode penelitian ini menggunakan metode yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan penelitian deskriptif-analitis melalui studi kepustakaan terhadap bahan hukum primer, sekunder, dan tersier, dengan analisis berbasis teori keadilan aristoteles dan kepastian hukum sudikno mertokusumo. mahkamah agung dalam putusan nomor 445 k/pdt.sus-kppu/2021 menilai kesamaan ip address sebagai bukti lemah dan hanya bagian dari verifikasi kelompok kerja, padahal pasal 13 ayat (1) peraturan presiden nomor 16 tahun 2018 tentang pengadaan barang dan jasa pemerintah menegaskan bahwa kelompok kerja hanya berwenang melakukan verifikasi administratif dan teknis, bukan audit digital forensik. pertimbangan hakim juga mengesampingkan pasal 5 ayat (1) uu ite yang mengakui data elektronik sebagai alat bukti hukum yang sah. berbeda dengan putusan nomor 154 k/pdt.sus-kppu/2015, putusan nomor 917 k/pdt.sus-kppu/2016, putusan nomor 5 k/pdt.sus-kppu/2019, dan putusan nomor 339 k/pdt.sus-kppu/2021 yang menilai ip address sah sebagai bukti penguat persekongkolan, putusan nomor 445 k/pdt.sus-kppu/2021 justru menurunkan bobotnya. kondisi ini berbeda dari inggris, brasil, singapura, dan china yang telah menetapkan autentikasi digital melalui metadata dan log sistem. kesamaan ip address dapat menjadi bukti petunjuk kuat bila didukung bukti lain seperti metadata dan log sistem. di indonesia diperlukan pedoman pembuktian digital nasional agar hakim menilai bukti elektronik secara objektif dan menjamin keadilan serta kepastian hukum dalam perkara persaingan usaha digital.

Article 22 of Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition prohibits bid rigging. As a preventive measure, the Government has implemented electronic procurement systems to enhance transparency. Accordingly, the Business Competition Supervisory Commission Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha or KPPU has used Internet Protocol Addresses as evidence of bid rigging. Pursuant to Article 1 point 1 of Law Number 11 of 2008 in conjunction with Law Number 19 of 2016 on Electronic Information and Transactions the ITE Law an IP Address constitutes electronic information while Article 5 paragraph 1 of the ITE Law affirms that electronic information and electronic documents constitute lawful legal evidence. However the Supreme Court through Decision Number 445 K Pdt Sus KPPU 2021 held that similarity of IP Addresses merely forms part of the verification conducted by the Working Group Kelompok Kerja or Pokja diverging from the position of the KPPU and thereby giving rise to legal uncertainty. This case study aims to analyze the considerations of the KPPU and the Supreme Court regarding similarities in IP Addresses and their impact on legal certainty justice and the strengthening of digital evidentiary standards in Indonesia. This research employs a normative juridical method with a descriptive analytical approach conducted through a literature review of primary secondary and tertiary legal materials with analysis based on the theory of justice of Aristotle and the theory of legal certainty of Sudikno Mertokusumo. In Decision Number 445 K Pdt Sus KPPU 2021 the Supreme Court considered similarities in IP Addresses to constitute weak evidence and merely part of the verification conducted by the working group notwithstanding Article 13 paragraph 1 of Presidential Regulation Number 16 of 2018 on Government Procurement of Goods and Services which stipulates that the working group is authorized only to conduct administrative and technical verification and not digital forensic audits. The judicial reasoning also set aside Article 5 paragraph 1 of the ITE Law which recognizes electronic data as lawful legal evidence. In contrast to Decision Number 154 K Pdt Sus KPPU 2015 Decision Number 917 K Pdt Sus KPPU 2016 Decision Number 5 K Pdt Sus KPPU 2019 and Decision Number 339 K Pdt Sus KPPU 2021 which recognized IP Addresses as valid corroborative evidence of bid rigging Decision Number 445 K Pdt Sus KPPU 2021 instead reduced their evidentiary weight. This approach differs from that adopted in the United Kingdom Brazil Singapore and China which have established digital authentication through metadata and system logs. Similarity of IP Addresses may constitute strong circumstantial evidence when supported by other evidence such as metadata and system logs. In Indonesia a national guideline on digital evidence is required to ensure that judges assess electronic evidence objectively and to guarantee justice and legal certainty in digital competition law cases.