ANALISIS PENERAPAN RULE OF REASON DALAM PENEGAKAN HUKUM ATAS PERSEKONGKOLAN BARANG/JASA DI KEMENTERIAN PEKERJAAN UMUM DAN PERUMAHAN RAKYAT (PUPR) KALIMANTAN TENGAH

Abstract

This research is motivated by the results of decisions in KPPU decisions Number
03/KPPU-L/2018, Number 04/KPPU-L/2018, and Number 06/KPPU-L/2018 . Stakeholder
employees appointed to be on the tender implementation committee were involved in the
conspiracy to win one of the business actors. The tender committee facilitated collusion with
one of the tender participants. The action taken by the tender implementation committee is to
organize and win certain tender participants, namely one of the Reported Parties, by providing
exclusive and preferred opportunities and to help organize the Reported Party group to be able
to win the tender by displacing other Reported Parties at the technical level even though the
documents are complete.
This research aims to determine the application of the rule of reason approach and law
enforcement regarding goods/services collusion in the Ministry of Public Works and Public
Housing (PUPR) in Central Kalimantan. The method used is descriptive normative legal

research using a statutory-regulatory approach to regulations relating to Article 22 of the Anti-
Monopoly and Unfair Business Competition Law. This research source uses primary,

secondary and tertiary legal materials with data collection techniques based on literature study
and data analysis techniques using the deduction method.
The research results obtained are related to the application of the rule of reason
approach to 3 (three) KPPU decisions, namely Numbers 03/KPPU-L/2018, 04/KPPU-L/2018,
and 06/KPPU-L/2018, which are still not perfectly implemented. Furthermore, regarding law
enforcement regarding goods/services collusion that occurred at the Ministry of Public Works
and Public Housing (PUPR) in Central Kalimantan, in this case to the working group as one
of the respondents, the Assembly did not follow the provisions of Article 47 Paragraph (2)
Letter F which stipulates there was payment of compensation even though it was legal and
proven to fulfill the elements of tender conspiracy as explained in the case above. Even though
all of the Reported Parties have been legally and convincingly proven in accordance with
Article 22.
Keywords : Tender Committe, Conspiracy, Tender