KPPU’s Institutional Challenges in Enforcing Anti-Monopoly Law against Foreign Dominated Corporations

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.sidebar##

Published Apr 13, 2026
https://doi.org/10.34012/jihp.v9i1.8146
Download
PDF
Statistic
Vol. 9 No. 1 (2026): JURNAL ILMU HUKUM PRIMA

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

Cynthia Wiranda
Universitas Pelita Harapan

Abstract

Indonesia’s economic expansion during the last two decades has relied heavily on foreign investment, which has created new challenges for domestic competition law. The Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha (KPPU), established under Law No. 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition, serves as the guardian of fair market conduct. Despite the law’s progressive intent, its enforcement capacity has been hampered by institutional weaknesses, overlapping regulatory mandates, limited investigatory power, and insufficient judicial cooperation. These challenges are exacerbated by the rapid expansion of multinational corporations operating across Indonesia’s key sectors such as mining, telecommunications, and digital trade whose cross-border structures often outpace the jurisdictional reach of domestic regulators. Through doctrinal and qualitative analysis, this study examines the gap between the normative aspirations of Indonesia’s competition law and its practical enforcement by KPPU. The research highlights several critical issues: (1) the inadequacy of procedural mechanisms for handling transnational antitrust cases; (2) the persistent political and bureaucratic interference undermining KPPU’s institutional independence; and (3) the lack of coordination between KPPU and other economic authorities, which weakens the overall deterrent effect of competition law.The findings suggest that Indonesia’s competition regime must evolve to reflect the dynamics of globalised markets. Legal reforms should focus on enhancing KPPU’s investigative autonomy, ensuring judicial consistency in antitrust decisions, and aligning domestic enforcement with ASEAN and OECD competition standards. Strengthening KPPU’s institutional capacity and jurisdictional reach is essential not only to preserve fair competition but also to safeguard Indonesia’s economic sovereignty in the face of deepening global integration.

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Wiranda, C. (2026). KPPU’s Institutional Challenges in Enforcing Anti-Monopoly Law against Foreign Dominated Corporations . Ilmu Hukum Prima (IHP), 9(1), 11–25. https://doi.org/10.34012/jihp.v9i1.8146

References

  1. ASEAN Experts Group on Competition (AEGC). ASEAN Competition Action Plan (ACAP) 2026–2030. Didukung oleh Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) dan Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). Diakses dari https://asean-competition.org/file/post_image/ACAP%202026-2030_Pub.pdf
  2. Hukumonline. n.d. “Gonjang ganjing Kartel: KPPU Kaji Aturan dan Rantai Penjualan Nikel.” Accessed October 11, 2025. https://www.hukumonline.com/berita/a/gonjang-ganjing-kartel--kppu-kaji-aturan-dan-rantai-penjualan-nikel-lt5dd2780fba89c/.
  3. Office of Assistant to Deputy Cabinet Secretary for State Documents & Translation. “President Prabowo Supports Increased Investment to Reach Rp3,414 Trillion by 2029.” Sekretariat Kabinet Republik Indonesia, February 5, 2025. https://setkab.go.id/en/president-prabowo-supports-increased-investment-to-reach-rp3414-trillion-by-2029-2/.
  4. Republic of Indonesia. Government Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia Number 57 of 2010 Concerning the Merger or Consolidation of Business Entities and Acquisition of Company Shares That May Result in Monopoly Practices and Unfair Business Competition. State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia 2010 Number 89.
  5. Republic of Indonesia. Law Number 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition. Jakarta: State Secretariat of the Republic of Indonesia, 1999.
  6. The Jakarta Post. 2025. “Diversifying Partnerships in Indonesia’s Nickel Downstreaming Strategy.” The Jakarta Post, August 6, 2025. Accessed October 11, 2025. https://www.thejakartapost.com/opinion/2025/08/06/diversifying-partnerships-in-indonesias-nickel-downstreaming-strategy.html
  7. “Tugas & Wewenang: Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha.” KOMISI PENGAWAS PERSAINGAN USAHA | Persaingan Sehat Sejahterakan Rakyat, July 1, 2020. https://kppu.go.id/tugas-dan-wewenang/.
  8. Books
  9. Gerber, David J. Law and Competition in Twentieth Century Europe: Protecting Prometheus. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
  10. Lubis, Andi Fahmi, Anggraini, Arie, Damayanti, Tiara Ayu, Hadiwidjaja, Rachmadi, and Zainal Sitompul. Hukum Persaingan Usaha di Indonesia. Jakarta: Kompas, 2020.
  11. Soekanto, Soerjono, and Sri Mamudji. Normative Legal Research: A Brief Introduction. Jakarta: RajaGrafindo Persada, 2006.
  12. Journal Article
  13. Disemadi, Hari Sutra, and Kholis Roisah. "The Enforcement of Business Competition Law by the Police: An Indonesian Experience." Lentera Hukum 6, no. 2 (2019): 203–214. https://doi.org/10.19184/ejlh.v6i2.12013.
  14. Hovenkamp, Herbert J. “The Antitrust Text.” Indiana Law Journal 99, no. 4 (2024): Article 1. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol99/iss4/1
  15. Khon, Dennis Wye Keen, Muhammad Iqbal Baiquni, and Waspiah Waspiah. “Two Decades of Business Competition Law: How Has Indonesian Competition Law Transformed?” Journal of Private and Commercial Law. Accessed October 11, 2025. https://journal.unnes.ac.id/nju/index.php/jpcl/index
  16. Nisa, Derin Fernanda Ainun, and Badrut Tamam. "Implikasi Hukum atas Tindakan Monopoli dan Praktik Kartel: Tinjauan terhadap Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha di Indonesia." TERAJU: Jurnal Syariah dan Hukum 6, no. 1 (2024): 19–35. https://doi.org/10.35961/teraju.v6i01.985.
  17. Peinert, Erik. “Cartels, Competition, and Coalitions: The Domestic Drivers of International Orders.” Review of International Political Economy 28, no. 6 (2021): 1652-1676. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2020.1788971.
  18. Roy, Nur Abdul Rahman, Elisatris Gultom, and Deviana Yuanitasari.
  19. “Eksaminasi Penerapan Rule of Reason Terhadap Persekongkolan untuk Memperoleh Rahasia Perusahaan Kompetitor dan Probabilitas Dominasi Perusahaan dalam Tindakan Anti Kompetitif: Studi Kasus Putusan Perkara Nomor: 08/KPPU-L/2024.”
  20. Jurnal Pendidikan Indonesia 6, no. 4 (2025): 1985–1995. https://doi.org/10.59141/japendi.v6i4.7652.
  21. Sabirin, Ahmad, and Anna Maria Tri Anggraini. "Quo Vadis Akuisisi Tokopedia oleh Gojek di Era Ekonomi Digital?" Amicus Curiae 1, no. 2 (2025): 1–15. https://doi.org/10.25105/amicus.v1i2.19818.
  22. Sidauruk, Gloria Damaiyanti. “Kepastian Hukum Putusan Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha dalam Penegakan Hukum Persaingan Usaha.” Lex Renaissance 6, no. 1 (January 2021): 132–151.
  23. Sukarmi, Hassan Qaqaya, Fransiska A. Susanto, and Rika Kurniaty. 2021. “The Qualified Effects Doctrine in the Extraterritorial of Competition Law Application: An Indonesia Perspective.” Sriwijaya Law Review 5, no. 2 (July): 192–204. https://doi.org/10.28946/slrev.Vol5.Iss2.1050.pp192-204.
  24. Tanujaya, Michelle Elie. “The Authoritative Power of Competition Agencies: A Comparative Analysis on U.S. and Indonesian Law.” Juris Gentium Law Review 8, no. 1 (2021). https://jurnal.ugm.ac.id/jurisgentiumlaw/article/view/84024.
  25. Wicaksono, Muhammad Rifky, Kusuma Raditya, Laurensia Andrini, and Muhammad Hawin. “Implementing the Extraterritoriality Principle to Strengthen Competition Law Enforcement in Indonesia in the AEC Era: A Comparative Study.” Indonesia Law Review 9, no. 1 (2019): 27–50. https://doi.org/10.15742/ilrev.v1n9.498.