2. Application of Law Number 5 of 1999 in Resolving Business Competition Disputes

In the provisions of Article 36 of Law Number 5 of 1999, it is stated that the authority as an investigator carried out by the KPPU is within the realm of criminal law, even though this is also the basis for the KPPU in seeking and finding material truth, namely whether business actors have violated Law Number 5 of 1999 or not. This confirms that the KPPU is only an institution that oversees the implementation of the law so that the KPPU does not have the authority to carry out coercive measures. This issue is also related to the legal position of the KPPU in the constitutional system, whether as a supervisory institution or a special law enforcement institution.

3. Institutional Problems and KPPU Authority

Law Number 5 of 1999 gives the KPPU very broad authority in enforcing business competition law, starting from receiving reports of alleged unfair business competition and monopolistic practices, conducting examinations, investigations, making decisions and imposing sanctions administrative for business actors who violate. In reality, the KPPU's authority actually raises concerns for business actors because there is no balance in due process of law because law enforcement is still considered one-way and there is an accumulation of authority which has implications for abuse of power from law enforcement institutions.

The problem that occurs is that the KPPU has not yet been facilitated by tools or coercive measures that can effectively implement the decisions and sanctions issued. As a result, many business actors do not comply with implementing these decisions. The KPPU requires implementing regulations that refer to the procedural law used in following up on Law Number 5 of 1999.