Protection For Tender Participants Businesses That Are Losses Due To Collection According To Business Competition Law
Imam Haryanto, Muthia Sakti, Wirya Agung Kusuma Putra
Abstract
The development of the Indonesian economy is aimed at improving the lives of people who are just and prosperous. This is an ideal that has been mandated in the 1945 Constitution and Pancasila. One of the obstacles in the Indonesian economy is the existence of monopolistic practices and unfair business competition in business or business in Indonesia. Tender conspiracy is one of the forms of action prohibited in the Anti-Monopoly Law because tender conspiracy is fraudulent and detrimental, especially to other tender participants who do not conspire, because automatically in the tender, the winner cannot be regulated, but rather who does it. the best bid is the winner and apart from that bid rigging is an anti-competitive act. Regarding the conspiracy, there is a KPPU Decision relating to this matter, namely the KPPU Decision Case Number 6 / KPPU-L / 2015 regarding the construction of the Barito Kuala Regency DPRD building and its Land Development, in its decision the KPPU Commission Council stated that Reported Party I (PT. Citra Kharisma Persada), reported II (PT. Cempaka Mulia Perkasa), reported III (PT Sumber Nor Abadi), reported IV (Pokja I in the Human Settlements Division of the Public Works Office of Barito Kuala Regency Fiscal Year 2013) was proven legally and convincingly violating Article 22 of the Law Number 5 of 1999. This research will discuss legal protections for business actors participating in tenders who suffer losses due to conspiracy in the KPPU's decision.
Keywords
Legal protection, business actors, conspiracy
References
Basri, Faisal, 2002. Perekonomian Indonesia: Tantangan dan Harapan Bagi Kebangkitan Indonesia, Erlangga, Jakarta.
Harjono, 2008. Konstitusi sebagai Rumah Bangsa, Sekertariat Jenderal dan Kepaniteraan Mahkamah Konstitusi, Jakarta.
Kagramanto, L. Budi, 2007. Larangan Persekongkolan Tender (Perspektif Hukum Persaingan Usaha), Srikandi.
Margono, Suyud, 2009. Hukum Anti Monopoli, Sinar Grafika, Jakarta.
Muhammad, Abdulkadir, 2010. Hukum Perusahaan Indonesia, PT. Citra Aditya Bakti, Bandung.
Nasution, Bahder Jonan, 2008. Metode Penelitian Ilmu Hukum, Mandar Maju, Bandung.
Raharjo, Satjipto, 2000. Ilmu Hukum, PT. Citra Aditya Bakti, Bandung.
Rokan, Mustafa Kamal, 2012. Hukum Persaingan Usaha Teori Praktiknya di Indonesia, PT. Raja Grafindo Persada, Jakarta.
Sitompul, Asril, 1999. Praktik Monopoli dan Persaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat (Tinjauan terhadap Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999), Citra Aditya Bakti, Bandung.
Usman, Rachmadi, 2004. Hukum Persaingan Usaha di Indonesia, Gramedia, Jakarta.
Indonesia, Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999 tentang Larangan Praktek Monopoli dan Persaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat.
Indonesia, Keputusan Presiden Nomor 80 Tahun 2003 tentang Pedoman Pelaksanaan Pengadaan Barang/Jasa Pemerintah
Krisanto, Yakub Adi, 2005. Analisis Pasal 22 UU No. 5 Tahun 1999 dan Karakteristik Putusan KPPU tentang Persekongkolan Tender, Jurnal Hukum Bisnis, Volume 24 No. 2, Jakarta.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24967/jcs.v5i2.1290
Article Metrics
Abstract view : 1393 times
PDF : 553 times
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2021 Imam Haryanto, Muthia Sakti, Wirya Agung Kusuma Putra
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Indexed by :
Imam Haryanto, Muthia Sakti, Wirya Agung Kusuma PutraAbstract
The development of the Indonesian economy is aimed at improving the lives of people who are just and prosperous. This is an ideal that has been mandated in the 1945 Constitution and Pancasila. One of the obstacles in the Indonesian economy is the existence of monopolistic practices and unfair business competition in business or business in Indonesia. Tender conspiracy is one of the forms of action prohibited in the Anti-Monopoly Law because tender conspiracy is fraudulent and detrimental, especially to other tender participants who do not conspire, because automatically in the tender, the winner cannot be regulated, but rather who does it. the best bid is the winner and apart from that bid rigging is an anti-competitive act. Regarding the conspiracy, there is a KPPU Decision relating to this matter, namely the KPPU Decision Case Number 6 / KPPU-L / 2015 regarding the construction of the Barito Kuala Regency DPRD building and its Land Development, in its decision the KPPU Commission Council stated that Reported Party I (PT. Citra Kharisma Persada), reported II (PT. Cempaka Mulia Perkasa), reported III (PT Sumber Nor Abadi), reported IV (Pokja I in the Human Settlements Division of the Public Works Office of Barito Kuala Regency Fiscal Year 2013) was proven legally and convincingly violating Article 22 of the Law Number 5 of 1999. This research will discuss legal protections for business actors participating in tenders who suffer losses due to conspiracy in the KPPU's decision.
Keywords
References
Basri, Faisal, 2002. Perekonomian Indonesia: Tantangan dan Harapan Bagi Kebangkitan Indonesia, Erlangga, Jakarta.
Harjono, 2008. Konstitusi sebagai Rumah Bangsa, Sekertariat Jenderal dan Kepaniteraan Mahkamah Konstitusi, Jakarta.
Kagramanto, L. Budi, 2007. Larangan Persekongkolan Tender (Perspektif Hukum Persaingan Usaha), Srikandi.
Margono, Suyud, 2009. Hukum Anti Monopoli, Sinar Grafika, Jakarta.
Muhammad, Abdulkadir, 2010. Hukum Perusahaan Indonesia, PT. Citra Aditya Bakti, Bandung.
Nasution, Bahder Jonan, 2008. Metode Penelitian Ilmu Hukum, Mandar Maju, Bandung.
Raharjo, Satjipto, 2000. Ilmu Hukum, PT. Citra Aditya Bakti, Bandung.
Rokan, Mustafa Kamal, 2012. Hukum Persaingan Usaha Teori Praktiknya di Indonesia, PT. Raja Grafindo Persada, Jakarta.
Sitompul, Asril, 1999. Praktik Monopoli dan Persaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat (Tinjauan terhadap Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999), Citra Aditya Bakti, Bandung.
Usman, Rachmadi, 2004. Hukum Persaingan Usaha di Indonesia, Gramedia, Jakarta.
Indonesia, Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999 tentang Larangan Praktek Monopoli dan Persaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat.
Indonesia, Keputusan Presiden Nomor 80 Tahun 2003 tentang Pedoman Pelaksanaan Pengadaan Barang/Jasa Pemerintah
Krisanto, Yakub Adi, 2005. Analisis Pasal 22 UU No. 5 Tahun 1999 dan Karakteristik Putusan KPPU tentang Persekongkolan Tender, Jurnal Hukum Bisnis, Volume 24 No. 2, Jakarta.
    
    
    
    
Justicia Sains : Jurnal Ilmu Hukum is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.