Supreme Court (MA) through Decision Number 413K/PDT.SUS/2009 dated 28 October 2009 as in its official website stated to affirm KPPU Decision Number 11/KPPU-L/2008 related to Alleged Violation against Article 17, Article 19 point d and Article 25 paragraph (1) point a Law Number 5 Year 1999 by PT Adhya Tirta Batam (PT ATB) in association with clean water management in Batam decided by Commission Assembly comprising Ir. M. Nawir Messi, M.Sc (Chairman), Dr. Sukarmi, S.H., M.H. and Ir. Dedie S. Martadisastra, S.E., M.M. as respective member.  MA’s judge assembly to adjudicate is Prof. Dr.Takdir Rahmadi, S.H., LL.M (Chairman), Djafni Djamal, S.H., M.H., and H.DR. Mohammad Saleh, S.H., M.H. as respective member. (Until now, KPPU still have not received excerpt notice and copy of the Supreme Court’s decision).
A case that started from a report to KPPU that has gone through the process of the Preliminary Examination held on 5 March to 18 April 2008, was continued until the extension of Advanced Examination until 25 August 2008. In this case, the Commission Assembly needs to assess the behavior of business actor in case of monopolistic practices. Based on the result of examination, the business actor alleged to perpetrate any violation and set as Reported Party is PT. Adhya Tirta Batam.

PT ATB as an administrator appointed by the Batam Industrial Development Authority to manage the water has stopped the connection of new water meter on the request of 6,889 (data from PT ATB), and as many as 12,781 (data from DPD REI Batam) as the bargaining power to ask for the rate increase to the Batam Authority. This is a fact of monopoly abuse as prohibited in Article 17 of Law Number 5 Year 1999 because there was abuse of Reported party position as the sole administrator of water to meet with its civil interest upon public loss as the consumer.

As known, this KPPU’s Decision concerning water monopoly in Batam was decided on
13 October 2008 in the following dictums:

1. Stating that PT. Adhya Tirta Batam is proven legally and convincingly violating Article 17 of Law Number 5 Year 1999 concerning Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition;.
2. Stating that PT. Adhya Tirta Batam is not proven violating Article 19, point d of Law Number 5 Year 1999 concerning Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition;
3. Stating that PT. Adhya Tirta Batam is not proven violating Article 25 paragraph (1), point a of Law Number 5 Year 1999 concerning Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition;
4. Ordering PT. Adhya Tirta Batam to revoke the policy of disconnecting the new water meter connection;

Punishing PT. Adhya Tirta Batam to pay a fine of Rp. 2,000,000,000, – (two billion rupiah) that must be paid to the State Treasury.
Prior to this appeal, PT. Adhya Tirta Batam as Reported Party, filed an objection in Batam District Court where upon this case the Batam District Court canceled KPPU’s decision on the basis that PT Adhya Tirta Batam is a mandate executive of the Batam Authority Regional Regulation.

Abstraction that can be drawn from this matter is that water management monopolized by certain business actor is not automatically making it free from the obligation to behave healthy business. Notwithstanding his appointment was based on a Regional Regulation, the business actor can not take advantage of dominant monopoly position to force the policy change such as rate increase that in addition to show the abuse, it also clearly inflict the consumer; case to which meeting with the qualification of monopoly abuse prohibited by Article 17 of Law Number 5 Year 1999.
Known that, this decision of water monopoly is the 23^rd KPPU’s decision from 47 decisions filed the appeal or 72% is affirmed by MA.

KPPU really appreciates this MA’s decision that systemically become a valuable thrust for KPPU to continue building a healthy business competition for people’s welfare in the future.

Finally, we herewith convey our thank you for the partner’s attention and assistance.

Junaidi (Mr)