South Jakarta District Court Confirms Decision of KPPU.
The South Jakarta District Court Confirms the Decision of KPPU with regard to the Violation of Article 22 of Law No. 5 Year 1999 committed by PC Muriah Ltd., PC Ketapang II Ltd., and PT Aquamarine Divindo Inspection. The said South Jakarta District Court corroborates Decision of KPPU No. 04/KPPUL/2017 in respect of the Infringement of Article 22 of Law No. 5/1999 perpetrated by PC Muriah Ltd., PC Ketapang II Ltd., and PT Aquamarine Divindo Inspection. The Hearing for the Reading Out of Decision No. 833/PDT.G.KPPU/2018/PN.JKT.SEL was conducted on January 3, 2019 in the presence of the Attorneys-at-Law of PC Muriah Ltd., and PC Ketapang II Ltd., as Petitioners of Objection and KPPU as Respondent of Objection.
The hearing was presided over by Krisnugroho, S.H., M.H., as the Head of the Panel of Judges, Mery Taat Anggarasih, S.H., M.H., and Florensani S K, S.H., M.H., as Members of the Panel of Judges, respectively and assisted by Aprisno, S.H., M.H., as the Substitute Clerk. In their decision, the Panel of Judges decided to Reject the petition of the Petitioners of Objection in their entirety, Confirms Decision of KPPU No. 04/KPPU-L/2017, and Sentences the Petitioners of Objection to pay for the case fees.
The materials of objection lodged by PC Muriah Ltd., and PC Ketapang II Ltd., basically dissenting from the considerations of the Commissioners’ Council of the KPPU in respect of aggravating matters, among other things: (1) that the Decision of KPPU deserves to be canceled for it is proven to have lacked parties and in violation of a due process of law, (2) that KPPU does not apply pursuant to tender issue settlement process that is subject to the provisions of PTK 007 Revision 03, and (3) that the Petitioners of Objection are not proven to have violated the provision of Article 22 of Law No. 5. In addition to the above, the Petitioners of Objection also file an application for additional examination, but the Panel of Judges in their interlocutory decision rejects the said petition based on the consideration that the expert witness who will be presented in the additional examination has been examined and inquired with regard to his expertise in the hearing proceedings at KPPU. Against the objection lodged by the Petitioners of Objection, the Panel of Judges in their consideration has the same view as KPPU by taking into account that the deed perpetrated by the Petitioners of Objection is in violation of Article 22 of Law No. 5/1999.
The provision of Article 45 paragraph (3) of Law No. 5 Year 1999 reads “The Parties that object to a decision of District Court may file a cassation to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia within 14 (fourteen) days”, so that both KPPU and the Petitioners of Objection may still exercise their right to file a remedy in the form of Cassation against the Decision of the District Court.