Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Perkara persekongkolan tender merupakan salah satu perkara yang mendominasi KPPU hadapi dalam upaya menegakkan hukum persaingan usaha nasional. Maraknya persekongkolan tender ini mengakibatkan dunia persaingan usaha di Indonesia mengarah kepada persaingan usaha tidak sehat yang berdampak pada inefisiensi perekonomian nasional. Sehubungan dengan dikeluarkannya Peraturan Presiden Nomor 54 Tahun 2010 diatur bahwa pengadaan barang dan/atau jasa wajib dilakukan secara elektronik. Dalam proses pengadaan barang dan/atau jasa tersebut membawa implikasi baru bahwa dengan dilakukannya pengadaan tender berbasis sistem elektronik (E-Procurement) maka menciptakan perubahan paradigma yang semula paper based menjadi electronic based. Oleh karena itu muncul perubahan dan perluasan terhadap alat bukti yang diajukan dalam persidangan. Hal ini membawa implikasi baru bahwa bukti elektronik yang dapat dibawa ke dalam persidangan tersebut harus mampu dijamin keautentikannya sehingga sah digunakan sebagai alat bukti. Terkait hal tersebut mengenai bukti elektronik berupa kesamaan Metadata File sebagai indikasi persekongkolan tender yang digunakan Majelis Komisi dalam pertimbangannya tidak diatur dalam peraturan perundang-undangan di Indonesia. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian yuridis-normatif yang menganalis mengenai akibat hukum dari bukti elektronik kesamaan Metadata File sebagai indikasi persekongkolan tender dalam hukum persaingan usaha di Indonesia.

---

The tender conspiracy case is one of the cases that dominate KPPU facing in an effort to enforce national business competition law. The rise of tender conspiracy causes the world of business competition in Indonesia to lead to unhealthy business competition which impact on the inefficiency of national economy. In connection with the issuance of Presidential Regulation No. 54 of 2010 stipulated that the procurement of goods and / or services must be done electronically. In the process of procurement of goods and / or services it brings new implication that by doing procurement of tender based on electronic system (E-Procurement) hence create paradigm change which originally paper based become electronic based. Therefore, there are changes and extensions to the evidence presented in the hearing. This brings new implications that electronic evidence that can be brought into the trial must be able to guarantee its authenticity so that it is legitimately used as evidence. Related to this concerning electronic evidence in the form of Metadata File similarity as an indication of the tender conspiracy used by Commission Council in its consideration is not regulated in the legislation in Indonesia. This study is a juridical-normative research that analyzes the legal effect of electronic evidence of Metadata File similarity as an indication of tender conspiracy in competition law in Indonesia."

"ABSTRAKSkripsi ini membahas mengenai 3 hal. Pertama, pembahasan mengenai perluasanlingkup istilah tender yang ditinjau secara umum. Kedua membahas mengenaipenjualan sebagai perluasan lingkup istilah tender yang ditinjau dari tata peraturanperundang-undangan yang berlaku. Pembahasan ini akan melihat definisi tenderyang terdapat dalam penjelasan Pasal 22 Undang-Undang No. 5 Tahun 1999tentang Larangan Praktek Monopoli dan Persaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat dandefinisi tender yang terdapat dalam Pedoman Pasal 22 tentang LaranganPersekongkolan Dalam Tender yang lalu dikaitkan dengan teori perundangundanganyang berlaku. Ketiga membahas mengenai implementasi penjualansebagai perluasan lingkup istilah tender yang terdapat dalam putusan-putusanKPPU. Dalam pembahasan ini akan diambil 2 putusan KPPU yang terkait denganpembahasan yaitu putusan perkara divestasi saham PT. Indomobil SuksesInternasional dan divestasi dua unit kapal tanker VLCC PT. Pertamina. Penulisanpenelitian ini menggunakan metode yuridis normatif dimana data penelitian inisebagian besar diperoleh dari studi kepustakaan. Hasil penelitian ini melihatbahwa perluasan lingkup istilah tender terkait dengan penjualan yang terdapatdalam putusan-putusan KPPU tidak sesuai dengan tata peraturan perundangundanganyang berlaku karena dasar dari penggunaan pengertian tender olehKPPU dalam putusan-putusan yaitu pedoman pasal 22 tentang laranganpersekongkolan dalam tender tidak sesuai dengan pengertian tender yang terdapatdalam peraturan perundang-undangan yang menjadi sumber dari pedomantersebut yaitu penjelasan Pasal 22 UU No. 5 Tahun 1999.

---

ABSTRACTThis thesis discusses about 3 things. First, the discussion of the expansion of

scope for tender term that viewed in general. Second, the discussion of sales as the

expansion of scope for tender term that viewed from the applicable regulations

system. This discussion will look at the definition of tender which contained in the

explanation of Article 22 Law No. 5 of 1999 regarding Prohibition of

Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Anti Monopoly Law)

and definition of tender which contained in the guideline of article 22 regarding

Prohibition of Bid Rigging and then associated with the applicable theory of

legislations. Third, the discussion regarding the implementation of sales as the

expansion of scope for tender term which contained in Comission for the

Supervision of Business Competition?s verdicts. This discussion would take 2

verdicts related, the verdict of divesment PT.Indomobil Sukses Internasional and

the verdict of divesment VLCC PT. Pertamina. This research is a normative

juridical research, which some of the data are based on the related literatures. The

result of this research shows the expansion of scope for tender term which

associated with sales is not accordance with the applicable regulations system

because the basic that Comission for the Supervision of Business Competition

used for tender term in their verdict which is the guideline of article 22 regarding

Prohibition of Bid Rigging is not accordance with the term of tender in the Law

No. 5 of 1999 which is the source of the guideline of article 22."

"Persekongkolan tender merupakan salah satu bentuk tindakan yang dilarang dalam undang-undang anti monopoli karena persekongkolan tender merupakan perbuatan curang dan tindakan merugikan, terutama peserta tender lainnya yang tidak bersekongkol, sebab dengan sendirinya dalam tender pemenang tidak dapat diatur-atur, melainkan siapa yang melakukan penawaran terbaik dialah pemenangnya dan selain itu persekongkolan tender merupakan tindakan yang anti persaingan. Dengan berlakunya UU Nomor 5 Tahun 1999, persekongkolan dalam tender (bid rigging) seperti tersebut di atas jelas sangat dilarang berdasarkan Pasal 22, yang berbunyi ?Pelaku usaha dilarang bersekongkol dengan pihak lain untuk mengatur dan atau menentukan pemenang tender sehingga dapat mengakibatkan terjadinya persaingan usaha tidak sehat."

"Bid rigging is an interesting problem to be examined, since it is a serious problem that is very influential in the development of Indonesia. Bid rigging practices are mostly encountered in the process of goods procurement and services provided by the government. Presumably, bid rigging practices have been rampant since the government actively encouraged for the development ofIndonesia, commencing in the 1980s. Although bid rigging is deemed as corruption with severe punishments for offenders, not many offenders have been put to trial and sentenced. Since the Law of the Republic of Indonesia No 5 of 1999 Concerning the Ban on Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (commonly referred to as the Competition Law) came into effect in 2000, bid rigging constitutes to an infringement of the Competition Law stipulated in Article 22 of Law No 5 of 1999. This is mostly reported to and investigated by the KPPU.2 As contained in the Annual Report of the KPPU, in 2010, there were 215 reports from the public regarding violation against competition law, where 175 reports were on bid rigging, and the remaining 40 cases pertained to non-tender cases.3 218 cases were decided by the Commission as ofanno 2000 to 2012. A total ofl47 decisions (67%) were bid rigging violations, while the rest of them were non-tender cases."