Correlation between Competition Law Cases and Corruption(Case Study: Indonesia)
Sirait, Ningrum Natasya
MetadataShow full item record
ASEAN member states enacted competition law in the legal system. The goals of competition law are consumer welfare, fair competition including access to market. Competition Law regulates prohibited agreements, conducts and abuse of dominance. Bid rigging (collusive tendering) is one of the prohibited agreements in Competition Law. This violation is found in collusion between government officials and companies in public procurements using state budget which aim to provide public facilities. Bid rigging has correlation with corruption. The interface between the laws can cause complications for law enforcement in terms of burden of proof, prosecutorial authority and court's jurisdiction. Indonesia experiences difficulties in facing the cross-section between competition law and corruption cases. In 1999 Indonesia enacted Law Number 5 of 1999 on Prohibited of Monopoly and Unfair Business Practices. Most cases decided by the Commission for the Supervision of Business Competition (Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha/KPPU) are violations of Article 22 Law Number .5 of 1999 on Bid Rigging or Collusive Tendering on public procurement. Almost all bid-rigging cases end with corruption trial. Jurisdiction of corruption case is upheld by Corruption Eradication Commission (Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi/KPK) together with the police and prosecutors. None of these institutions conducts joint investigation. Coordination is seemingly a difficult task to execute among law enforcers in Indonesia. Therefore, harmonization is the key word to achieve judicial efficiency, consumer welfare and assurance of law enforcement.