KPPU must ensure consistent and transparent law enforcement to increase compliance among business actors

Oct 13, 2025 by magicalceylontours.com 33 views

Juridical Analysis of Business Competition in the case of late notification of the takeover of PT Jambi Primal Coal shares by PT PLN Batubara (KPPU Decision Study Number: 23/KPPU-M/2019)

Introduction

Business competition is a crucial aspect of economic democracy in Indonesia. The principles of economic democracy aim to promote a healthy business environment, where companies can operate fairly and competitively. To achieve this, the Indonesian government has implemented laws and regulations to prevent monopoly practices and unfair business competition. One such regulation is Law No. 5 of 1999 concerning Prohibition of Monopoly Practices and Unfair Business Competition. This law requires business actors to notify the Business Competition Supervisory Commission (KPPU) of any takeover of shares that exceed a certain threshold.

The importance of timely notification cannot be overstated. Article 29 of Law No. 5 of 1999 and Article 5 paragraph (1) of PP No. 57 of 2010 regulate the obligation of business actors to provide notifications to KPPU regarding the takeover of shares. This notification must be delivered no later than 30 working days after the takeover is effectively valid. Failure to comply with this regulation can result in severe consequences, including fines and penalties.

The Case of PT PLN Batubara

In 2019, KPPU Decision No. 23/KPPU-M/2019 was issued, finding PT PLN Batubara guilty of violating Article 29 of Law No. 5 of 1999. The company was accused of late notification to KPPU regarding the takeover of PT Jambi Primal Coal shares. The takeover was effective on a certain date, but the notification was delivered 71 days later, exceeding the 30-working-day deadline.

The case highlights a mismatch of understanding between business actors regarding the effectiveness of the juridical validity date of the takeover of shares. This has proven to be one of the factors causing delays in delivering notifications to KPPU. The case also raises questions about the consistency and fairness of administrative sanctions imposed by KPPU.

Analysis of KPPU Decision No. 23/KPPU-M/2019

The decision imposed a fine of Rp. 1,000,000,000.00 (one billion rupiah) on PT PLN Batubara for the late notification. While the fine reflects the KPPU's efforts to enforce the law, it also becomes a question about uniformity and justice in the imposition of sanctions. The fine is significant, but it may not be proportionate to the severity of the offense.

A closer examination of the case reveals inconsistencies in the application of administrative sanctions by KPPU. The fine imposed on PT PLN Batubara is higher than what was imposed on other companies that may have committed similar offenses. This raises concerns about the fairness and consistency of KPPU's decision-making process.

Conclusion

The case of PT PLN Batubara provides an important lesson about the need for a better understanding between business actors regarding applicable legal provisions, especially related to the takeover of shares. Consistent and transparent law enforcement by KPPU is also expected to increase the compliance of business actors in carrying out notification obligations.

A healthy business competition climate is essential for the principles of economic democracy to thrive in Indonesia. By promoting a fair and competitive business environment, the government can encourage economic growth and development. The case of PT PLN Batubara serves as a reminder of the importance of compliance with regulations and the need for consistent and fair enforcement of the law.

Recommendations

To promote a healthy business competition climate, the following recommendations are made:

Business actors must have a better understanding of applicable legal provisions, especially related to the takeover of shares.
KPPU must ensure consistent and transparent law enforcement to increase compliance among business actors.
Administrative sanctions imposed by KPPU must be fair and proportionate to the severity of the offense.
KPPU must review its decision-making process to ensure consistency and fairness in the imposition of sanctions.

References

Law No. 5 of 1999 concerning Prohibition of Monopoly Practices and Unfair Business Competition
Article 29 of Law No. 5 of 1999
Article 5 paragraph (1) of PP No. 57 of 2010
KPPU Decision No. 23/KPPU-M/2019
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Juridical Analysis of Business Competition in the case of late notification of the takeover of PT Jambi Primal Coal shares by PT PLN Batubara (KPPU Decision Study Number: 23/KPPU-M/2019)

Q1: What is the significance of timely notification in business competition?

A1: Timely notification is crucial in business competition as it prevents adverse competition practices in the market. Article 29 of Law No. 5 of 1999 and Article 5 paragraph (1) of PP No. 57 of 2010 regulate the obligation of business actors to provide notifications to KPPU regarding the takeover of shares that exceed a certain threshold.

Q2: What is the consequence of late notification in business competition?

A2: Failure to comply with the regulation of timely notification can result in severe consequences, including fines and penalties. In the case of PT PLN Batubara, the company was fined Rp. 1,000,000,000.00 (one billion rupiah) for late notification.

Q3: What is the role of KPPU in enforcing business competition laws?

A3: KPPU is responsible for enforcing business competition laws and regulations in Indonesia. The commission has the authority to investigate and impose administrative sanctions on business actors who violate the law.

Q4: What is the significance of KPPU Decision No. 23/KPPU-M/2019?

A4: KPPU Decision No. 23/KPPU-M/2019 is significant as it highlights a mismatch of understanding between business actors regarding the effectiveness of the juridical validity date of the takeover of shares. The case also raises questions about the consistency and fairness of administrative sanctions imposed by KPPU.

Q5: What are the implications of the case on business competition in Indonesia?

A5: The case has implications for business competition in Indonesia as it highlights the need for a better understanding between business actors regarding applicable legal provisions, especially related to the takeover of shares. Consistent and transparent law enforcement by KPPU is also expected to increase the compliance of business actors in carrying out notification obligations.

Q6: What are the recommendations for promoting a healthy business competition climate in Indonesia?

A6: To promote a healthy business competition climate, the following recommendations are made:

Business actors must have a better understanding of applicable legal provisions, especially related to the takeover of shares.
KPPU must ensure consistent and transparent law enforcement to increase compliance among business actors.
Administrative sanctions imposed by KPPU must be fair and proportionate to the severity of the offense.
KPPU must review its decision-making process to ensure consistency and fairness in the imposition of sanctions.

Q7: What are the benefits of a healthy business competition climate in Indonesia?

A7: A healthy business competition climate is essential for the principles of economic democracy to thrive in Indonesia. By promoting a fair and competitive business environment, the government can encourage economic growth and development.

Q8: What are the challenges in enforcing business competition laws in Indonesia?

A8: Enforcing business competition laws in Indonesia can be challenging due to the complexity of the regulations and the need for consistent and transparent law enforcement. Additionally, the lack of awareness among business actors about applicable legal provisions can also hinder the enforcement of the law.

Q9: What is the role of the government in promoting a healthy business competition climate in Indonesia?

A9: The government plays a crucial role in promoting a healthy business competition climate in Indonesia. By implementing laws and regulations that promote fair and competitive business practices, the government can encourage economic growth and development.

Q10: What are the future directions for business competition in Indonesia?

A10: The future directions for business competition in Indonesia include promoting a better understanding between business actors regarding applicable legal provisions, ensuring consistent and transparent law enforcement by KPPU, and reviewing the decision-making process of KPPU to ensure consistency and fairness in the imposition of sanctions.