Electronic Theses and Dissertation

Undang-undang nomor 5 tahun 1999 tentang larangan praktik monopoli dan persaingan usaha tidak sehat dalam pasal 19 huruf d menyatakan bahwa setiap pelaku usaha dilarang melakukan praktik diskriminasi terhadap pelaku usaha tertentu yang dapat mengakibatkan terjadinya persaingan usaha tidak sehat. namun, dalam beberapa kasus yang terjadi, berbagai pelaku usaha dominan di indonesia masih ditemukan melakukan perlakuan yang berbeda terhadap mitra atau pesaing tertentu tanpa justifikasi yang dapat dibenarkan, sehingga menimbulkan distorsi pasar dan merugikan pelaku usaha lain. penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis bagaimana praktik diskriminasi oleh pelaku usaha dapat dikategorikan sebagai bentuk persaingan usaha tidak sehat, serta menjelaskan penerapan hukum persaingan usaha terhadap praktik diskriminasi dalam proses penanganan dan penilaian perkara di komisi pengawas persaingan usaha (kppu). metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah yuridis normatif. untuk memperoleh data sekunder, penelitian ini dilakukan melalui studi kepustakaan dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan (statute approach) dan pendekatan kasus (case approach), yaitu menelaah peraturan perundang-undangan yang relevan serta mengkaji bahan hukum primer, sekunder, dan tersier yang selanjutnya dianalisis secara kualitatif. hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa kasus diskriminasi dikategorikan sebagai persaingan usaha tidak sehat apabila memenuhi tiga elemen kumulatif: adanya perlakuan berbeda, tidak adanya justifikasi yang sah, serta timbulnya dampak negatif terhadap persaingan. penilaian dilakukan dengan pendekatan rule of reason. dalam perkara pt garuda indonesia dan lion group, kppu menjatuhkan sanksi administratif karena terbukti menimbulkan hambatan struktural di pasar. sebaliknya, dalam perkara pt telkom dan pt telkomsel, kppu menyimpulkan tidak terdapat pelanggaran karena tindakan didasarkan pada kepatuhan regulasi. penelitian ini menegaskan perlunya pembaruan pasal 19 huruf d undang-undang nomor 5 tahun 1999 agar kriteria praktik diskriminasi dirumuskan lebih eksplisit. kppu juga perlu memperbarui pedoman pasal 19 huruf d serta memperkuat kapasitas analisis ekonomi dalam setiap pemeriksaan perkara agar penegakan hukum persaingan usaha dapat terlaksana secara efektif dan berkeadilan.

Law Number 5 of 1999 concerning the Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition, under Article 19(d), provides that every business actor is prohibited from engaging in discriminatory practices against certain business actors where such conduct may result in unfair business competition. Nevertheless, in several cases, dominant business actors in Indonesia have been found to apply differential treatment toward certain business partners or competitors without any legitimate justification, thereby creating market distortions and causing harm to other business actors. This study aims to analyze the circumstances under which discriminatory practices by business actors may be classified as a form of unfair business competition and to examine the application of competition law to discriminatory practices in the investigation and adjudication of cases before the Business Competition Supervisory Commission (Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha/KPPU). This research employs a normative juridical method. Secondary data were collected through library research using both the statutory approach and the case approach. The study examines relevant laws and regulations, as well as primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials, all of which are analyzed qualitatively. The findings demonstrate that discriminatory conduct may be categorized as unfair business competition only where three cumulative elements are satisfied: (i) the existence of differential treatment; (ii) the absence of legitimate justification; and (iii) the occurrence of adverse effects on competition. Such assessment is conducted under the rule of reason approach. In the cases involving PT Garuda Indonesia and the Lion Group, the KPPU imposed administrative sanctions after finding that the discriminatory conduct had created structural barriers to competition in the relevant market. Conversely, in the case involving PT Telkom and PT Telkomsel, the KPPU concluded that no violation had occurred because the conduct in question was based on compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. This study underscores the need to amend Article 19(d) of Law Number 5 of 1999 to provide more explicit criteria for identifying discriminatory practices. Furthermore, the KPPU should revise its Guidelines on Article 19(d) and strengthen its economic analysis capacity in the examination of competition cases to ensure that competition law enforcement is carried out effectively, consistently, and fairly.