STANDARDIZATION OF ECONOMIC EVIDENCE (INDIRECT EVIDENCE) TO PROOF CARTEL VIOLATION IN INDONESIA

Abstract

Evidence has an essential role in determining the existence of a violation in a competition case. However, the evidentiary of competition cases cannot be separated from the use of economic evidence because it is almost impossible to find a written agreement among the business actors. This is depicted by the cartel of Scooter Matic (Skutik), Tariff Operator, and Garlic case in Indonesia. This research tries to elaborate the application of economic evidence in the aforementioned cases. Hence, on the question regarding on how the KPPU verifies the economic evidence in the evidentiary process in handling those cases. Additionally, in figuring out whether or not the standardization of economic evidence had already been appropriate with the evidentiary process relating to the evidence guidance in the according to the procedurals of competition law. This research is conducted through a normative approach with the process of collecting data by both literature studies by collecting articles, documents and news. In the process of analyzing data during the process of this research, it is applied the qualitative method of analysis. It was done by describing the data, knowledge and information through description or explanation which is assessed by the opinions of the experts, by laws, and also by the researcher’s own arguments. Subsequently, qualifying it and connecting the theory or doctrine related to the formulation of the problem in this study, as well making conclusions to determine the results and also recommendation. Economic Evidence of these cases is uses price parallelism in which the business actor creates a strategy to control the prices in the market. Practically economic evidence is not appropriate for the reason that KPPU often uses economic evidence as a final Evidence to determine the business actor’s conduct of cartel. In this case there is no clear limit on what kind of Economic Evidence that qualifies as valid and convincing evidence. It is preferable for the amendment in the Law No. 5 of 1999 to discuss specifically on the position, application of economic evidence as direct evidence, along with the investigator’s capacity to enforce the application of economic evidence.