The Supreme Court Strengthens the Decision of KPPU

AKLI PLN may not divide the area
The Supreme Court by virtue of the Verdict No. 32 K/PDT.SUS/2010, dated February 11^th,  2010 as published in its official website states that it has strengthened the KPPU’s Decision No. 53/KPPU-L/2008 on alleged violation of Article 9 of Law Number 5 Year 1999 on Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition. The alleged violation relates to the division of area conducted by AKLI Head Office, AKLI South Sulawesi Regional Office, AKLI Palopo Branch Office, AKLI North Luwu Branch Office,  AKLI Luwu Timur Branch Office, and AKLI Tana Toraja Branch Office as decided by the Commission Assembly consisting of Yoyo Arifardhani, S.H., M.M., LL.M (Chairman), Prof. Dr. Ir. Ahmad Ramadhan Siregar, M.S. dan Dr. Anna Maria Tri Anggraini, respectively as members.
As it may be known that the KPPU’s decision has the following dictum:

1. To declare that the Reported Party I (Central Executive Committee of the Association of Indonesian Electrical and Electrical Consultants) (DPP AKLI), the Reported Party II (Regional Executive Committee of the Association of Indonesian Electrical and Electrical Consultants (DPD AKLI) of South Sulawesi, the Reported Party III (Branch Executive Committee of the Association of Indonesian Electrical and Electrical Consultants) (DPC AKLI) of Palopo, the Reported Party IV (Branch Executive Committee of the Association of Indonesian Electrical and Electrical Consultants (DPC AKLI) of North Luwu, the Reported Party V (Branch Executive Committee of the Association of Indonesian Electrical and Electrical Consultants) (DPC AKLI) of East Luwu, the Reported Party VI ((Branch Executive Committee of the Association of Indonesian Electrical and Electrical Consultants (DPC AKLI) of Tana Toraja are convincingly proven to violate Article 9 of Law Number 5 Year 1999 .

2. To order the Reported Party I (Central Executive Committee of the Association of Indonesian Electrical and Electrical Consultants) (DPP AKLI) to annul agreement on work area division of the Technical Responsible Officer ((PJT) on the Ratification Letter of the Technical Responsible Officer, effective from the pronouncement of this  decision.

3. To order the Reported Party II (Regional Executive Committee of the Association of Indonesian Electrical and Electrical Consultants (DPD AKLI) of South Sulawesi, the Reported Party III (Branch Executive Committee of the Association of Indonesian Electrical and Electrical Consultants) (DPC AKLI) of Palopo, the Reported Party IV (Branch Executive Committee of the Association of Indonesian Electrical and Electrical Consultants (DPC AKLI) of North Luwu, the Reported Party V (Branch Executive Committee of the Association of Indonesian Electrical and Electrical Consultants) (DPC AKLI) of East Luwu, the Reported Party VI ((Branch Executive Committee of the Association of Indonesian Electrical and Electrical Consultants (DPC AKLI) of Tana Toraja not to implement the agreement on work area division of the Technical Responsible Officer, effective from the pronouncement of this  decision.
For which, the Central Executive Committee of the Association of Indonesian Electrical and Electrical Consultants) (DPP AKLI) as the Reported Party by virtue of Article 44 paragraph (2) of Law Number 5 Year 1999 has filed an objection to the South Jakarta District Court. Then, the South Jakarta District Court has rejected such objection and strengthened the decision of KPPU No. 53/KPPU-L/2008, dated February 13^th,  2009 on legal basis that the Objection Petition has violated article 9 of Law Number 5 Year 1999 and proven that the division of the area has caused unfair business competition. In the cessation, the Supreme Court even strengthens the verdict of South Jakarta District Court which also mean that to support the decision of the KPPU No. 53/KPPU-L/2008 ini. This has ascertained KPPU that the Supreme Court has the same opinion in this matter with KPPU on the proven violation committed by AKLI and the due process of law has been taken by KPPU. On this regard, the performance of KPPU in enforcing the law has been better in which 24 decisions, out of 47 decisions which are appealed to the Supreme Court or 73% of KPPU’s decisions are strengthened by the Supreme Court.

From this decision, it can be concluded that (1) the association must not become an instrument to divide the areas which is basically prohibited by the provisions of Article 9 of Law Number 5 Year 1999; (2) this prohibition shall also include the association’s regulation on the division of the work area of the technical responsible officer (PJT) which cause no competition among electrical business entities which are not affiliated in the local PJT; (3) encourage the quality competition among contracting business actors nationally in a bid to improve the consumer’s access to the good quality if electrical installation services. The result is that consumers will be more convenient in using electrical services they need.