Urgensi Penjatuhan Denda sebagai Sanksi Administrasi Utama: Tinjauan Kasus Persekongkolan Tender dalam Persaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat

Article Sidebar

ARTICLE PDF
Published: Dec 7, 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.31933/unesrev.v6i2.1230
Keywords:
Fine Penalty, Tender Collusion, Business

Main Article Content

Fionna Khantidevi Lukmadi
Universitas Tarumanagara, Jakarta, Indonesia
Ariawan Gunadi
Universitas Tarumanagara, Jakarta, Indonesia

Abstract

The present-day dynamic development of the world economy is creating enormous changes in trade. The increasing developments and needs of the global market today for adequate facilities and infrastructure for economic activities has created many forms of unhealthy competition, one of which is bid rigging which is carried out to avoid competition between business actors. This tender collusion is widespread among large business actors who want to obtain partnerships with the government in providing infrastructure. Hence, Law Number 5 of 1999 Concerning Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition was formulated which regulates administratif penalty due to bid rigging. Seeing that the problem of tender collusion is still occurring, this research was conducted to identify fines as the main administratif sanction to prevent collusion in tender activities. Therefore, this article was prepared with the title "The Urgency of Imposing Fines as the Main Administratif Sanction: Review of Cases of Tender Rigging in Unfair Business Competition". The object of this research is fines as administratif penalty with the aim that if fines are determined as the main administratif sanction before the main crime, healthy business competition will be created. The normative judicial with literature study is a method that will be used in this research so that we can see how fines as administratif penalty apply in cases of bid rigging.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Khantidevi Lukmadi, F., & Gunadi, A. (2023). Urgensi Penjatuhan Denda sebagai Sanksi Administrasi Utama: Tinjauan Kasus Persekongkolan Tender dalam Persaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat. UNES Law Review, 6(2), 4572-4581. https://doi.org/10.31933/unesrev.v6i2.1230
Issue
Vol. 6 No. 2 (2023): UNES LAW REVIEW (Desember 2023)
Section
Articles
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Hak cipta :

Penulis yang mempublikasikan manuskripnya di jurnal ini menyetujui ketentuan berikut:

  1. Hak cipta pada setiap artikel adalah milik penulis.
  2. Penulis mengakui bahwa UNES Law Review berhak menjadi yang pertama menerbitkan dengan lisensi Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (Attribution 4.0 International CC BY 4.0) .
  3. Penulis dapat mengirimkan artikel secara terpisah, mengatur distribusi non-eksklusif manuskrip yang telah diterbitkan dalam jurnal ini ke versi lain (misalnya, dikirim ke repositori institusi penulis, publikasi ke dalam buku, dll.), dengan mengakui bahwa manuskrip telah diterbitkan pertama kali di Jurnal UNES Law Review.

References

Ali, Z. (2013). Metode Penelitian Hukum. Sinar Grafika.
Anggraini, A. M. T. (2006). Law Enforcement in Bid Rigging In Indonesia.
Dewobroto, M. (2008). Persekongkolan Tender Pada Proyek Kerjasama Pemerintah dan Swasta dalam Perspektif Hukum Persaingan Usaha (Studi Putusan KPPU Perkara Nomor 15/KPUU-L/2007 & Perkara Nomor 23/KPPU-L/2007). Universitas Indonesiaa.
Ginting, E. R. (2001). Hukum Anti Monopoli Indonesia: Analisis dan Perbandingan Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999. Citra Aditya Bakti.
Gray, J. R. (1996). Open-Competitive Bidding in Japan’s Public Works Sector and Foreign Contractor Access: Recent Reforms are Unlikely to Meet Expectations. Columbia Journal of Asian Law, 10(2). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.7916/cjal.v10i2.3165
Huzaini, M. Dani Pratama. (2017). Menakar Besaran Denda yang Efektif Bagi Pelaku Anti Persaingan Usaha. Hukumonline.com. https://www.hukumonline.com/berita/a/menakar-besaran-denda-yang-efektif-bagi-pelaku-anti-persaingan-usaha-lt598d71938cd61/
Iyori, H. (1995). A Comparison of US-Japan Antitrust Law: Looking at the International Harmonization of Competition Law. Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal, 3, 60–91.
Johan, S. (2022). Sanksi Administratif Denda Pendekatan Laporan Keuangan Atas Pelanggaran Persaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat. Masalah-Masalah Hukum, 51(1), 20–28.
Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha Republik Indonesia. (2023). Peraturan Ketua Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha Republik Indonesia Nomor 3 Tahun 2023 tentang Pedoman Larangan Persekongkolan dalam Tender. Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha Republik Indonesia.
Lubis, A. F., Anggraini, A. M. T., Toha, K., Kagramanto, L. B., Hawin, M., Sirait, N. N., Sukarmi, Maarif, S., & Silalahi, U. (2009). Hukum Persaingan Usaha Antara Teks & Konteks. Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha Republik Indonesia.
Matheus, J., Delicia, N. F., & Rasji. (2023). Implementation of the Carbon Tax Policy in Indonesia: Concepts and Challenges Towards Net Zero Emissions 2060. Ajudikasi : Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, 7(1), 91–114. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.30656/ajudikasi.v7i1.6464
Meyliana, D. (2013). Hukum Persaingan Usaha: Studi Konsep Pembuktian Terhadap Perjanjian Penetapan Harga dalam Persaingan Usaha. Setara Press.
Nugroho, S. A. (2012). Hukum Persaingan Usaha di Indonesia Dalam Teori dan Praktik Serta Penerapan Hukumnya. Prenada Media Group.
Okatani, N. (1995). Regulations on Bid Rigging in Japan, the United States and Europe. Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal, 4(1), 249–266.
PwC. (2023). Global Top 100 companies - March 2023. PwC. https://www.pwc.co.uk/services/audit/insights/global-top-100-companies.html
Setiadi, W. (2009). Sanksi Administratif Sebagai Salah Satu Instrumen Penegakan Hukum dalam Peraturan Perundang-Undangan. Jurnal Legislasi Indonesia, 6(4), 603–614. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.54629/jli.v6i4.336