A Legal Analysis of the Supreme Court's Legal Reasoning in Annulling the KPPU Decision in a Tender-Collusion Case (Decision No. 523 K/Pdt.Sus-KPPU/2024)
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study examines the differing interpretations between the Business Competition Supervisory Commission (KPPU) and the Supreme Court regarding the evidentiary standard for tender collusion in Supreme Court Decision Number 523K/Pdt.Sus-KPPU/2024, as well as the legal grounds relied upon by the panel of judges of the Supreme Court in annulling KPPU Decision Number 17/KPPU-L/2022. KPPU had previously ruled that tender collusion occurred and imposed a monetary fine, a decision subsequently upheld by the Central Jakarta District Court. At the cassation level, however, the Supreme Court overturned the ruling on the grounds that no direct or indirect evidence was found indicating cooperation or a request from the tender participants to the project owner. This research employs a normative legal method with a qualitative approach, relying on secondary data consisting of primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials gathered through library research and analyzed descriptively. The findings show that the divergence between the two institutions lies in the standard of proof applied: KPPU considered it sufficient that one tender participant obtained a benefit, whereas the Supreme Court required two cumulative elements, namely a benefit to the tender participant and an agreement or request originating from that participant. This divergence indicates that the stricter evidentiary standard adopted by the Supreme Court provides greater legal certainty, but risks narrowing KPPU's authority to act against covert forms of tender collusion.
Article Details
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
References
Achmad Ali, Menguak Teori Hukum (Legal Theory) dan Teori Peradilan (Judicialprudence), Jakarta: Kencana Prenada Media Group, 2009.
Andi Muhammad Asrun, “Politik Hukum Pembentukan Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999 tentang Larangan Praktek Monopoli dan Persaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat”, “Fiat Justisia: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum”, (2014).
Andy Omara and Januari Sihotang, "Kedudukan Ketetapan Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 12 Tahun 2011 dan Implikasi Yuridisnya terhadap Sistem Perundang-Undangan di Indonesia," Jurnal Penelitian Hukum Gadjah Mada 1, no. 1 (2012).
Arie Siswanto, Hukum Persaingan Usaha: Naskah Akademik UU no. 5 Tahun 1999.
Dandapala, "Pertentangan Putusan Sebagai Alasan Peninjauan Kembali https://dandapala.com/kaidahHukum/detail/pertentangan-putusan-sebagai-alasan-peninjauan-kembali. Accessed pada 21 Agustus 2026.
Dina Mayasari Sinaga, Martono Anggusti, and Janpatar Simamora, "Penggunaan Indirect Evidence (Alat Bukti Tidak Langsung) oleh KPPU dalam Proses Pembuktian Dugaan Praktik Kartel (Studi di Kantor Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha Wilayah I Medan)", Nommensen Journal of Legal Opinion 2, no. 1 (2021).
Fairuz Zahirah Zihni Hamdan, et al., "Upaya Keberatan atas Putusan KPPU ke Pengadilan Niaga: Pembaharuan Berkepastian Hukum", Media Iuris, 6, no. 1, 2023. https://doi.org/10.20473/mi.v6i1.26393.
Hermansyah, Pokok-Pokok Hukum Persaingan Usaha di Indonesia, Jakarta: Kencana, 2009.
Kholidul Azhar, Ansori, Nivarica Aurel Nur Syahputri, “Tinjauan Hukum terhadap Persekongkolan Tender dalam Pengadaan Barang dan Jasa Pemerintah”, jurnal hukum perdata dan pidana, 2024.
M. Kahfi, Kurniawan, and L. W. P. Suhartana, "Persekongkolan Tender (Analisis Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 405 K/Pdt.Sus-KPPU/2020)," Jurnal Risalah Kenotariatan 4, no. 2 (2023).
Munir Fuady, Teori Hukum Pembuktian (Pidana dan Perdata), Bandung: PT Citra Aditya Bakti, 2006.
Peraturan KPPU Nomor 1 Tahun 2019 tentang Tata Cara Penanganan Perkara dan Perma Nomor 3 Tahun 2021 tentang cara pengajuan keberatan.
Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 523 K/Pdt.Sus-KPPU/2024.
Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 745 K/Pdt.Sus-KPPU/2024.
Sastyo Aji Darmawan, "Kekuatan Indirect Evidence Dalam Pembuktian Kasus Persekongkolan Tender dan Penerapannya di Dalam Proses Tender," Jurnal Pengadaan Barang dan Jasa 1, no. 1 (2022): 10–18. https://doi.org/10.55961/jpbj.v1i1.7.
Sekti Purwo Utomo and Ditha Wiradiputra, "Penggunaan Indirect Evidence pada Proses Pembuktian dalam Hukum Acara Persaingan Usaha", Jurnal Hukum dan Kenotariatan,2021. https://doi.org/10.33474/hukeno.v5i3.10660.
Shidarta“Persekongkolantender”https://businesslaw.binus.ac.id/2021/05/10/persekongkolan-tender. Accessed pada 06 Juli 2026 Pukul 17.30 WIB.
Simamora, Janpatar and Bintang ME Naibaho, “Strengthening the Legal Foundation of the Prosecutor’s Office in the Constitutional System of the Republic of Indonesia,” Jurnal Konstitusi 22, no. 2 (Juni 2025).
Simamora, Janpatar and Risma Elfrida Esther Manik, “"Legal Politics in Combating Corruption during Indonesia's Era of Regional Autonomy,” Jurnal Hukum & Governance, 2025.
Simamora, Janpatar, "Kepastian Hukum Pengajuan Kasasi Oleh Jaksa Penuntut Umum Terhadap Vonis Bebas," Jurnal Yudisial 7, no. 1 (2014). https://doi.org/10.29123/jy.v7i1.90.
Simamora, Janpatar, Regional Government Policy in Protecting Customary Land Rights: A Case Study of the Toba Batak Indigenous Community, Khazanah Hukum, 7, no. 3 (2025).
Sudikno Mertokusumo, Hukum Acara Perdata Indonesia, Edisi Kedelapan, Liberty, Yogyakarta, 2006.
Susanti Adi Nugroho, Hukum Persaingan Usaha di Indonesia dalam Teori dan Praktik serta Penerapan Hukumnya, Jakarta: Kencana Prenadamedia Group, 2012.
Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999 tentang Larangan Praktik Monopoli dan Persaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat.
Wahyu Dwi Erlangga and Arrisman, "Analisis Kekuatan Alat Bukti Tidak Langsung dalam Pembuktian Dugaan Praktik Kartel", Jurnal Supremasi 2021.