Urgensi Prinsip Ekstrateritorial Secara Eksplisit Dalam Hukum Persaingan Usaha Pada Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha (KPPU) (Studi Putusan Perkara Nomor 17/KPPU-M/2015)

Maulidatulkhasanah, Ita (2021) Urgensi Prinsip Ekstrateritorial Secara Eksplisit Dalam Hukum Persaingan Usaha Pada Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha (KPPU) (Studi Putusan Perkara Nomor 17/KPPU-M/2015). Sarjana thesis, Universitas Brawijaya.

Abstract

Pada skripsi ini, penulis mengangkat permasalahan Urgensi Prinsip Ekstrateritorial Secara Eksplisit Dalam Hukum Persaingan Usaha Pada Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha (KPPU). Pilihan tema tersebut dilatar belakangi oleh adanya globalisasi ekonomi yang membawa hukum suatu negara harus bekerja diluar yurisdiksi negara sehingga dapat mengakomodir kepentingan perlindungan hukum pelaku usaha usaha lintas batas negara atau disebut prinsip ekstrateritorial. Undang-Undang Nomor 5 tahun 1999 tentang Larangan Praktik Monopoli dan Persaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat sebagai bentuk payung hukum kegiatan pelaku usaha Indonesia tidak menempatkan prinsip ekstrateritorial secara eksplisit karena kurang luasnya definisi pelaku usaha pada Pasal 1 angka 5 undang-undang tersebut. Hal ini dijadikan celah hukum perusahaan asing, sebagai contoh Toray Advanced Materials. Inc. (TAK) perusahaan yang berkedudukan di Korea Selatan itu memberikan tangkisan atas dugaan pelanggaran Pasal 29 Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999 Juncto Pasal 6 Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 57 Tahun 2010 yang dilayangkan terhadapkanya, karena Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha (KPPU) dianggap tidak memiliki wewenang prinsip ekstrateritorial. Toray Advanced Materials. Inc. (TAK) melakukan pengambilalihan saham diluar yurisdiksi Indonesia terhadap anak perusahaan yang berkedudukan di Indonesia Woongjin Chemical Co. pada Putusan Perkara Nomor 17/KPPU-M/2015. Berbeda dengan Hukum negara asing seperti Amerika, bahwa hukum Amerika dapat memeriksa subyek hukum tanpa melihat yurisdiksi subyek hukum tersebut dan dampaknya dapat merugikan perekonomian Indonesia. Berdasarkan hal tersebut diatas, karya tulis ini mengangkat rumusan masalah: (1) Bagaimana kewenangan Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha (KPPU) terkait prinsip ekstrateritorial dalam Putusan Perkara Nomor 17/KPPU-M/2015? (2) Bagaimana urgensi prinsip ekstrateritorial dalam pengambilalihan saham perusahaan Indonesia oleh perusahaan asing secara eksplisit dalam hukum persaingan usaha di Indenesia? Penulisan karya tulis menggunakan metode yuridis normatif yaitu metode pendekatan peraturan perundang-undangan (statute approach) dan pendekatan kasus (case approach). Bahan hukum yang diperoleh penulis akan dipilih yang lebih relevan dengan permasalahan yang diangkat, kemudian dilakukan pengolahan bahan hukum dan interpretasi bahan hukum guna mendapatkan jawaban yang sesuai sehingga dapat dipaparkan kesimpulan dalam bentuk tertulis oleh penulis. Berdasarkan hasil penelitian dengan metode di atas, penulis memperoleh jawaban atas permasalahan yang ada bahwa prinsip ekstrateritorial tidak dicantumkan secara eksplisit, sehingga terjadi kekaburan hukum dan menyebabkan ketidakpastian hukum. Hal ini acapkali dijadikan celah perusahaan asing, seperti Toray Advanced Materials Inc. (TAK) yang mempertanyakan dasar kewenangan Komisi terhadap perusahaan asing yang berkedudukan di Korea Selatan tersebut. viii Komisi pada dasarnya memiliki wewenang atas Perusahaan Toray Advanced Materilas Inc. (TAK) karena memenuhi frasa “melakukan kegiatan perekonomian di Indonesia” dengan memiliki anak perusahaan yang berkedudukan atau berdomisili di Indonesia. Pada putusan sebelumnya, yang telah ditetapkan Mahkamah Agung, Pasal 1 angka 5 lebih menekankan pada pendekatan fungsional atau pendekatan dengan melihat dilakukan atau tidaknya kegiatan perekonomian di Indonesia bukan menggunakan pendekatan subjek hukum. Sehingga dalam hal ini, pelaku usaha asing dapat dikenakan sanksi berdasarkan Undang-Undang Nomor 5 tahun 1999, asalkan melakukan kegiatan perekonomian di Indonesia. Indonesia sebagai negara civil law yang menempatkan undang-undang sebagai hukum utama, memerlukan perluasan definisi pelaku usaha terkait wewenang prinsip ekstrateritorial Komisi Pengawas Persaiangan Usaha (KPPU) pada Undang-Undang Nomor 5 tahun 1999 tentang Larangan Praktik Monopoli dan Persaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat demi terwujudnya tujuan hukum secara pasti dan menjaga iklim perekonomian Indonesia tetap stabil.

English Abstract

In this thesis, the author raises the issue of the Urgency of Explicit Extraterritorial Principles in the Law of Business Competition in the Commission for the Supervision of Business Competition (KPPU). The choice of this theme was motivated by the existence of economic globalization which led to the law of a country having to work outside the jurisdiction of the country so that it could accommodate the importance of legal protection for business actors across national borders or recognized as the extraterritorial principle. Law Number 5 of 1999 concerning Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition as a form of legal protection for the activities of Indonesian business actors does not explicitly state extraterritorial principles due to the lack of a broad definition of business actors in Article 1 point 5 of the law. This has become a legal loophole for foreign companies, for example Toray Advanced Materials. Inc. (TAK) the company which is located in South Korea provides a countermeasure against the alleged violation of Article 29 of Law Number 5 of 1999 in conjunction with Article 6 of Government Regulation Number 57 of 2010 which was filed against it, by reason of the Commission for the Supervision of Business Competition (KPPU) is deemed not to hold extraterritorial principal authority. Toray Advanced Materials. Inc. (TAK) took over the shares outside the Indonesian jurisdiction against a subsidiary company located in Indonesia, Woongjin Chemical Co., on Case Decision Number 17 / KPPU-M / 2015. In contrast to the laws of foreign countries such as America, American law can examine legal subjects regardless of the jurisdiction of the legal subject and its impact can be detrimental to Indonesia’s economy. Based on the aforementioned matters, this paper raises the problem formulations: (1) What is the authority of the Commission for the Supervision of Business Competition (KPPU) regarding the extraterritorial principle in Case Decision Number 17 / KPPU-M / 2015? (2) What is the urgency of the explicit extraterritorial principle in the takeover of Indonesian company shares by foreign companies in the business competition law in Indonesia? The writing of this research uses the normative juridical method, known as the statute approach and the case approach. The legal materials obtained by the author will be selected by the more relevant to the issues raised, then processing the legal materials and interpreting the legal materials in order to obtain appropriate answers so that conclusions can be presented in written form by the author. From the results of the research using the method above, the writer obtained an answer to the existing problem that the extraterritorial principle was not stated explicitly, resulting in legal obscurity and causing legal uncertainty. This has often been used as legal loopholes by foreign companies, such as Toray Advanced Materials Inc. (TAK) which questioned the basis of the Commission’s authority over the foreign company located in South Korea. The Commission basically has x authority over the Toray Advanced Materilas Inc. (TAK) because it fulfills the phrase “conducting economic activities in Indonesia” by having a subsidiary that is located in Indonesia. In the previous decision, which has been determined by the Supreme Court, Article 1 point 5 emphasizes the functional approach or approach by observing whether or not economic activities are carried out in Indonesia instead of using a legal subject approach. Therefore, in this case, foreign business actors might be the subject to sanctions based on Law Number 5 of 1999, as long as they carry out economic activities in Indonesia. Indonesia as a civil law country that places the law as the main constitution, requires an expansion of the definition of business actors related to the extraterritorial authority of the Commission for the Supervision of Business Competition (KPPU) in Law Number 5 of 1999 concerning the Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition for the realization of the law objectives with certainty and keep Indonesian economic climate in a stable state.

Other obstract

-

Item Type:	Thesis (Sarjana)
Identification Number:	0520010181
Subjects:	300 Social sciences > 340 Law
Divisions:	Fakultas Hukum > Ilmu Hukum
Depositing User:	Nur Cholis
Date Deposited:	24 Nov 2021 01:51
Last Modified:	02 Oct 2024 01:40
URI:	http://repository.ub.ac.id/id/eprint/186752

Text fix-ITA MAULIDATULKHASANAH.pdf Download (1MB)

Actions (login required)

View Item