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, particularly Article 19(d), prohibits business actors from engaging in discriminatory practices against certain business actors where such conduct may result in unfair business competition. Nevertheless, in practice, a number of dominant business actors in Indonesia continue to apply differential treatment toward particular business partners or competitors without any legitimate or objectively justifiable basis. Such conduct has the potential to distort market competition and adversely affect other business actors. This study aims to examine the circumstances under which discriminatory practices by business actors may be classified as unfair business competition and to analyze the application of Indonesian competition law to discriminatory conduct in the investigation, assessment, and adjudication of cases by 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 subsequently analyzed using a qualitative legal analysis. The findings demonstrate that discriminatory conduct may be classified as unfair business competition only where three cumulative elements are established: (i) differential treatment toward certain business actors; (ii) the absence of a legitimate or objectively justifiable reason for such treatment; and (iii) the existence of adverse effects on market competition. The assessment of discriminatory practices is conducted under the rule of reason approach. In the cases involving PT Garuda Indonesia and Lion Group, the KPPU imposed administrative sanctions after finding that the discriminatory conduct created structural barriers to competition within the relevant market. Conversely, in the case involving PT Telekomunikasi Indonesia (PT Telkom) and PT Telekomunikasi Selular (PT Telkomsel), the KPPU concluded that no violation had occurred because the challenged conduct was undertaken in compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. This study underscores the necessity of amending Article 19(d) of Law Number 5 of 1999 to provide a clearer and more explicit formulation of the legal criteria governing discriminatory practices. It further recommends that the KPPU revise its Guidelines on Article 19(d) and strengthen its economic analytical capacity in the examination of competition cases in order to ensure that competition law is enforced effectively, consistently, and fairly.