Raiza, Farhan Putra and Amelia Srikusumadewi and Rumi Suwardiyati (2021) Kepastian Hukum Penggunaan Frasa Praktik Diskriminasi yang Termuat dalam Pedoman Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha Terhadap Kasus KPPU Melawan PT Grab Teknologi Indonesia. Sarjana thesis, Universitas Brawijaya.
Abstract
Pihak KPPU menuntut kepada Perusahaan TPI dan Perusahaan Grab kepada Pengadilan iKPPU idikarenakan telah imelakukan tindakan idiskriminasi dikarenakan ifitur i"order iprioritas iAplikasi iGrab" ipada iPerusahaan iTPI idan iPerusahaan iGrab. iAtas ipelanggaran itersebut, ihakim iKPPU ipada iPutusan iKPPU iNomor i13/KPPU iI/2019 iPerusahaan iGrab itelah idijatuhi idenda isebesar iRp i7,5 imiliar iatas ipelanggaran iPasal i14 idan iRp. i22,5 imiliar iatas iPasal i19 ihuruf id, isementara iPerusahaan iTPI idikenakan idenda iRp. i4 imiliar idan iRp. i15 imiliar iatas idua ipasal itersebut. iNamun iputusan itersebut idibatalkan ioleh iPutusan iPengadilan iNegeri idan iMahkamah iAgung iyang imenyatakan ibahwasanya igugatan iKPPU iini iditolak ikarena ipertimbangan itidak iterdapat iperbandingan iapple ito iapple. iSehingga idari ikasus itersebut itentu imenarik iuntuk idibahas idengan irumusan imasalah itentang ibagaimana iKomisi iPengawas iPersaingan iUsaha idalam imemberikan imakna iterkait iunsur ipraktik idiskriminasi idalam ikasus iPT iGrab iTeknologi iIndonesia idan iPT iTeknologi iPengangkutan iIndonesia? idan ibagaimana imakna idari iunsur ipraktik idiskriminasi iyang itermuat idalam iPedoman iKPPU idapat imemenuhi iasas ikepastian ihukum?. iPenelitian iini imenggunakan ijenis ipenelitian iyuridis inormatif idengan ipendekatan iperaturan iperundang iundangan, idoktrin idan ikasus. iSehingga ipenulis imenemukan kesimpulan dalam penelitian ini bahwasanya iPemaknaan ioleh iKPPU iatas iunsur idiskriminasi ipada iPedoman iPasal i19 ihuruf id iUU iNo.5 iTahun i1999 idapat idibagi iatas i2 ijenis, iyaitu iperilaku iyang iberbeda iterhadap isesama ipelaku iusaha iyang idisebabkan ikarena ipersekongkolan idan iperlakuan iyang imengakibatkan iadanya iposisi idominan iyang idijelaskan ipada iPasal i25 iUU iNo.5 iTahun i1999 itanpa ijustifikasi ilegal, isosial, iekonomi, iteknis idan ialasan ilainnya iyang idapat iditerima. iMakna idari iunsur idiskriminatif itersebut, idirasa ikurang ilengkap iapabila itidak iadanya ipenerapan iprinsip iapple ito iapple, imengingat ifrasa i"alasan ipembenar ilainnya" imemiliki ipenafsiran iyang iberbeda ibeda idisetiap ipara ipihak. iDengan itidak imenerapkan iprinsip itersebut, itelah imemiliki idampak iyang imerugikan ibagi iPT iGrab iTeknologi iIndonesia idan iPT iTPI, idan imenyebabkan ikekeliruan berfikir bagi KPPU yang menimbulkan ketidakpastian hukum.
English Abstract
The KPPU has sued the TPI Company and the Grab Company to the KPPU Court for having committed acts of discrimination due to the "Grab Application priority order" feature on the TPI Company and Grab Company. For this violation, the KPPU judge in KPPU's Decision Number 13/KPPU I/2019 The Grab Company has been sentenced to a fine of Rp. 7.5 billion for violations of Article 14 and Rp. 22.5 billion for Article 19 letter d, while TPI Company is subject to a fine of Rp. 4 billion and Rp. 15 billion for the two articles. However, the decision was annulled by the Decision of the District Court and the Supreme Court which stated that the KPPU's lawsuit was rejected due to the consideration that there was no apple to apple comparison. So that from this case it is certainly interesting to discuss with the formulation of the problem about how the Business Competition Supervisory Commission provides meaning regarding the elements of discriminatory practices in the case of PT Grab Teknologi Indonesia and PT Teknologi Pengangkutan Indonesia? and how is the meaning of the element of discriminatory practice contained in the KPPU's Guidelines to fulfill the principle of legal certainty?. This study uses a normative juridical research with an approach to legislation, doctrine and cases. Thus, the authors conclude in this study that the KPPU's interpretation of the element of discrimination in the Guidelines for Article 19 letter d of Law No. 5 of 1999 can be divided into 2 types, namely different behavior towards fellow business actors caused by conspiracy and treatment that results in a position dominant as described in Article 25 of Law No. 5 of 1999 without legal, social, economic, technical and other acceptable reasons. The meaning of the discriminatory element is considered incomplete if there is no application of the apple to apple principle, considering that the phrase "other justification" has different interpretations for each party. By not applying this principle, it has had a detrimental impact on PT Grab Teknologi Indonesia and PT TPI, and has caused a misunderstanding for KPPU which has created legal uncertainty.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Sarjana) |
|---|---|
| Identification Number: | 0521010149 |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Persaingan Usaha, Diskriminasi, Apple to Apple., Business Competition, Discrimination, Apple to Apple. |
| Subjects: | 300 Social sciences > 340 Law |
| Divisions: | Fakultas Hukum > Ilmu Hukum |
| Depositing User: | Nur Cholis |
| Date Deposited: | 24 May 2023 06:35 |
| Last Modified: | 24 May 2023 06:35 |
| URI: | http://repository.ub.ac.id/id/eprint/200222 |
![[thumbnail of DALAM MASA EMBARGO]](http://repository.ub.ac.id/style/images/fileicons/text.png) |
Text (DALAM MASA EMBARGO)
Farhan Putra Raiza.pdf Restricted to Registered users only until 31 December 2023. Download (2MB) |
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |