The Use of Per Se Illegal Approach in Proving the Price-Fixing Agreements in Indonesia

Siti Anisah

Abstract


The Indonesia Competition Commission (the ICC) often faces difficulties to find evidence in the form of agreement made by business actors in determining prices. The agreement is the main element to prove the price-fixing which is prohibited under Article 5 of Law No. 5 of 1999. The legal issue discussed in this research is whether the use of per se illegal approach in proving the price-fixing agreement requires direct evidence or it is sufficient with an indirect evidence. This normative study found that the competition authorities still impose sanctions to business actors even though the (legitimate) agreement does not exist. The examination requires an in-depth understanding of economic theories and should prioritize the principle of prudence due to its vulnerability to manipulation. The analysis of Decision No. 08/KPPU-I/2014 and 04/KPPU-I/2016 found that the ICC proved the price-fixing case using indirect evidence and included an analysis of the impact on competition. Both cases indicate that the ICC applied the rule of reason approach because of the difficulties in finding the evidence of the agreement. On the other hand, the ICC applied per se illegal approach in the Decision No. 10/KPPU-L/2009 and 14/KPPU-I/2014 due to the existence of direct evidence.

Keywords


price pixing agreement; per se illegal; circumstantial evidence

Full Text:

PDF

References


Books:

Anggraini, A. M. T. (2003). Larangan Praktek Monopoli dan Persaingan Tidak Sehat: Per Se Illegal atau Rule of Reason. Jakarta: Program Pascasarjana Fakultas Hukum Universitas Indonesia.

Black, O. (2005). Conceptual Foundations of Antitrust. UK: Cambridge University Press.

Lubis, A.F. et. al. (2017), Hukum Persaingan Usaha, Jakarta: Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha.

Posner, R. A. (1976). Antitrust Law: An Economic Perspective. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Sarjana, I Made. (2014). Prinsip Pembuktian dalam Hukum Acara Persaingan Usaha. Sidoarjo: Zifatama Publisher.

Journal Articles:

Busu, Mihail and Cimpan, Bodgan. (2014). Screening Methods for The Detection of Cartels. Network Intelligence Studies: Romanian Foundation for Business Intelligence, Editorial Department, issued 3: 21-31. Available online from: https://ideas.repec.org/a/cmj/networ/y2014i3p21-31.html

Conant. (1954). Consciously Parallel Action in Restraint of Trade. Minnesota Law Review, 38: 797-825. Available online from: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr/1945.

King, Henry L. (1977). Inferring a Price-Fixing Conspiracy. Antitrust Law Journal, 46(2): 455-465. Available online from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/i40037530

Kovacic,William E. et.al. (2011). Plus Factors and Agreement in Antitrust Law. Michigan Law Review, 110(3): 393-436. Available online from: http://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol110/iss3/1

Page, William H. (2007). Communication and Concerted Action. Loyola University Chicago Law Journal, 38(3): 405-460. Available online from: https://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj/vol38/iss3/3

---------, (2009). The Gary Dinners and the Meaning of Concerted Action. SMU Law Review, 62(2): 597-620. Available online from: https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol62/iss2/7.

Poisto, A. & Alavi, H. (2016). Abuse of Dominant Market Position by Predatory Pricing; the Valio Case. Hasanuddin Law Review, 2(1): 24-37. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10. 20956/halrev.v1n1.212.

Internet:

Grout P. & Sonderegger P. (2005). Predicting Cartels, Office of Fair Trading. Economic discussion paper of March 2005. Available online from: http://www.oft.gov.uk [Accessed October 25, 2019].

Harrington, J. E. (2006). Behavioral Screening and the Detection of Cartels. EU Competition Law and Policy Workshop. Available at https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/cdd8/80848e6240a7c5d17f0fc736a75046bb739a.pdf [Accessed October 25, 2019].

HRS. (2014). Hakim Australia: Circumstantial Evidence Penting dalam Kasus Kartel, Available online from: http://www.hukumonline.com/berita/baca/lt53b5ecfaad76a/hakim-australia--circumstantial-evidence-penting-dalam-kasus-kartel [Accessed October 20, 2019].

Marshall, R. C. et.al. (2011). “Dominant Firm Conduct by Cartels”. Center for Study of Auctions, Procurements & Competition Policy, Working Paper. Available at http://capcp.psu.edu/papers/2011/dominantfirm.pdf [accessed October 24, 2019].

Regulations and Decision:

American Tobacco Co. v. United States, 328 U.S. 781 (1946).

Burgerlijk Wetboek, Stb. 1847-23.

Het Herziene Indonesisch Reglement abbreviated as HIR, Stb 1848-16, Stb. 1941-44.ICC Regulation No. 1 of 2010 concerning Procedure for Case Handling.

Indonesia Competition Commission Decision No. 04/KPPU-I/2016 concerning Automatic Motorcycle Industry 110-125 CC in Indonesia.

Indonesia Competition Commission Decision No. 08/KPPU-I/2014 concerning Four Wheeled Vehicle Tire Cartel.

Indonesia Competition Commission Decision No. 10/KPPU-L/2009 concerning Ticket Trading Arrangement on Lion Air and Wings Air Airlines in West Nusa Tenggara Province.

Indonesia Competition Commission Decision No. 13/KPPU-I/2014 concerning Provision of Ground Handling Services in connection with Irregular Flight Services at I Gusti Ngurah Rai Airport – Bali.

Indonesia Competition Commission Decision No. 14/KPPU-I/2014 concerning Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Selling in the Bandung and Sumedang Regions.

Indonesia Competition Commission Decision No. 221 K/Pdt.Sus-KPPU/2016 concerning Alleged Violations of Article 5 and Article 11 of Law No. 5 of 1999 by PT Bridgeston.

Indonesia Competition Commission Regulation No. 4 of 2011 concerning Guidelines for Article 5 (Price Fixing) of Law No. 5 of 1999.

Law No. 5 of 1999 concerning Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition.

Law No. 8 of 1981 concerning Criminal Procedural Law, the State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia of 1981 No. 76, Additional Gazetted No. 3209.

NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma. (1984). 468 U.S. 85.

Recthsreglement Buitengewesten abbreviated as RBg or Reglemen daerah seberang, Stb. 1927-227.

Supreme Court Decision No. 221 K/Pdt.Sus-KPPU/2016 concerning Cassation on Decision No. 04/KPPU-I/2016.

Supreme Court Decision No. 336 K/Pdt.Sus/2010 concerning Judicial Review of ICC Regulation No. 1 of 2010.

Theatre Enters., Inc. v. Paramount Film Distrib. Corp., 346 U.S. 537, 1954.

Williamson Oil Co., Inc. v. Philip Morris USA, 346 F.3d 1287, 11th Cir. 2003.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.18196/jmh.20200145

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2020 Siti Anisah

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

             

  

JMH Visitor