Procedures of filing objection on Indonesia’s Anti-Trust Commission (KPPU) rulings has been vaguely mentioned in the anti-trust laws. Supreme Court regulations should resolve the issue.

As several rulings have caused controversies, the Indonesian Commission for the Supervision of Business Competition (KPPU), equivalent to an Anti-Trust Commission that governs monopoly or other unfair business practices in other countries, has been working closely with the Indonesian Supreme Court to establish rules on the filing of objections of KPPU rulings.

Law 5/1999 on Anti-Trust designed to remove unfair business practices that appear in monopolies and oligopolies, as well as in vertical and horizontal business integrations, is now in full force and the KPPU has issued rulings that have not been acceptable to business actors being subjects of the rulings.

This law vaguely addresses the procedures for filing objections, causing confusions in some large anti-trust cases. The Supreme Court’s draft of the rule includes that an objection to a KPPU ruling may be filed at a District Court and not at an Administrative Court. To avoid filings being submitted to several District Courts, the Supreme Court will appoint one District Court. The KPPU will only be required to deliver the decision and the relevant dossiers to the presiding judges of the District Court but not obliged to appear in court. In the event the District Court judges view that the investigation or review is in order, then the case will be referred back to the KPPU.

Important is that the Supreme Court draft clarifies the enforcement of a KPPU ruling, therefore affirming that the KPPU may file writ of execution to the relevant District Court of the business actor’s domicile, or at the District Court where an objection has been filed

If you need clarification or legal advice on this issue, please contact Lubis Ganie Surowidjojo at lgs@lgslaw.co.id