ANALISA YURIDIS PERSEKONGKOLAN TENDER PEMBANGUNAN GEDUNG DPRD BARITO KUALA DAN LAND DEVELOPMENTNYA (Studi Putusan KPPU Nomor 06/KPPU-L/2015)

Open Access

Abstract

Abstrak Putusan KPPU(Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha)Nomor 06/KPPU-L/2015 yang menilai tentang adanya persekongkolan vertikal dan horizontal yang perlu ditelaah kembali berdasarkan teori mengenai persekongkolan dalam hukum persaingan usaha. Pertimbangan Majelis Komisi yang memutus bahwa Terlapor IV bersalah sesuai dengan keterangan saksi, seharusnya Terlapor IV tidak dapat dipersalahkan. Selanjutnya putusan bahwa Terlapor V tidak bersalah, tidak sesuai dengan Pasal 8 huruf g Perpres Pengadaan Barang/Jasa Pemerintah. Putusan terhadap Terlapor IV dan Terlapor V perlu ditelaah kembali yaitu mengenai kekuatan alat bukti saksi dalam persidangan. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui dan memahami tentang dasar pertimbangan KPPU dalam memutus perkara Nomor 06/KPPU-L/2015 tentang tender pembangunan gedung DPRD Barito Kuala dan land developmentnya. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode yuridis normatif yang bertumpu pada norma-norma hukum yang terdapat dalam peraturan perundang-undangan dan putusan-putusan pengadilan serta norma-norma yang ada dalam masyarakat. Hasil penelitian ini menjelaskan beberapa indikasi persekongkolan yang ada dalam tiap tahapan tender dalam kasus tersebut. Persekongkolan horizontal antara Terlapor I, Terlapor II, dan Terlapor III yang memang terjadi dan tidak benar bahwa telah terjadi persekongkolan vertikal antara Terlapor I, Terlapor II, Terlapor III dengan Terlapor IV dan Terlapor V sesuai dengan teori mengenai persekongkolan horizontal dan vertikal serta hasil dalam persidangan. PPK (Pejabat Pembuat Komitmen) yang secara struktural berada di bawah KPA (Kuasa Pengguna Anggaran) dan ada kemungkinan dapat terlibat dalam persekongkolan. Pertimbangan Majelis Komisi yang memutus Terlapor IV bersalah berdasarkan alat bukti saksi tidak tepat karena hal yang dilakukan Terlapor IV bukan merupakan persekongkolan. Akan lebih tepat jika Terlapor IV dipersalahkan karena mengakibatkan persaingan usaha tidak sehat. Pertimbangan Majelis Komisi yang memutus Terlapor V tidak bersalah sudah tepat, karena meskipun Terlapor V berdasarkan alat bukti saksi tidak terlibat dalam persekongkolan namun kelalaian Terlapor V berakibat secara tidak langsung menyebabkan persekongkolan antara peserta dan menyebabkan persaingan usaha tidak sehat sehingga menyebabkan kerugian negara. Kata Kunci: persekongkolan, dasar pertimbangan, alat bukti saksi. Abstract Decision of KPPU Number 06/KPPU-L/2015 which assesses the existence about vertical and horizontal conspiracy which need to be reviewed again based on the theory of conspiracy in business competition law. The consideration of the council deciding that Reported IV is guilty in accordance with the tertimony of witnesses, Reported IV should not be blamed. Subsequently, the verdict that the Reported V is not guilty isn't appropriate in accordance Article 8 letter g of the Presidental Decree on Government Goods/Services. The verdict against Reported IV and Reported V needs to be reviewed again on the strenght of witness evidence in the trial. This research aims to know and find out about the basic consideration of the council in deciding the case Number 06/KPPU-L/2015 on the tender for the construction of the Barito Kuala's parliament building and its development land. This study uses normative juridicial method that based on legal norms contained in the legislation and judicial decisions and norms that exist in society. The result of this research explains some of the indications conspiracy that exist in each stage of the tender in the case. The horizontal conspiracy between Reported I, Reported II, and Reported III that happened and it is not true that there has been a vertical conspiracy between Reported I, Reported II, Reported III with Reported IV and Reported V according to the theory about horizontal and vertical conspiracy as well as the results in the trial. PPK that structurally under KPA and the possibility being involved in the conspiracy. The consideration of the council deciding Reported IV is guilty based on the witness evidence isn't correct because the thing done by Reported IV isn't a conspiracy. It would be more appropriate if Reported IV is blamed for causing unfair business competition. The consideration of the council deciding Reported V is correct, because althought Reported V isn't involved in the conspiracy but the negligence of Reported V resulted in indirectly facilitating conspiracy between participants and causing unfair business competition even causing the loss of the state.